intercultural leadership: key concepts for international researchers

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)

Columbia University

Adjunct Faculty Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy

The New School

Research & Leadership

RESEARCH

RESEARCHER

-Recruitment-Data Collection-Assessments-Intervention-Data Analysis-Publications-Dissemination-Implementation

LEADER

-Leader vs. boss-Inspire-Motivating-Team Cohesion- Team Engagement- Retain Talent- Organizational Change

Levels of Cultural Difference

Individual

Team

Professional Discipline

Organizational Culture

National Culture

Goals of the presentation

• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting research

• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of

research, through:– leadership styles– team cohesion – motivation and commitment

• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,

Dorfman, P.W., and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,

R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined

“The ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members”

(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview• Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation• Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review• Over 150 Co-investigators• Requirements for participation

• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals • At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food

processing, telecommunications)• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization • respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational

practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures

affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational practices that are accepted and effective?

• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to leadership and organizational practices?

• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions• Performance Orientation• Future Orientation• Gender Egalitarianism• Assertiveness• Individualism and Collectivism

– Institutional– In-Group

• Power Distance• Humane Orientation• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection• Qualitative• Quantitative

– Societal and Organizational Culture• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7individual interests collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants

• 17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries• Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251• More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants • 74% of respondents were men• Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager• Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years• 51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation

Higher Performance Orientation Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language and communications

Value what you do more than who you are Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency Have a low sense of urgency

The extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.

Performance OrientationBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3

Switzerland 4.94 Egypt 4.27 Namibia 3.67

Singapore 4.90 Germany (W) 4.25 Argentina 3.65

Hong Kong 4.80 India 4.25 Bolivia 3.61

S. Africa (B) 4.66 Zimbabwe 4.24 Portugal 3.60

Iran 4.58 Japan 4.22 Italy 3.58

South Korea 4.55 S. Africa (W) 4.11 Qatar 3.45

Canada (Eng) 4.49 Mexico 4.10 Russia 3.39

USA 4.49 Brazil 4.04 Venezuela 3.32

China 4.45 Spain 4.01 Greece 3.20

Austria 4.44 Morocco 3.99

Australia 4.36 Nigeria 3.92

Netherlands 4.32 Turkey 3.83

Sweden 3.72

El Salvador 3.72

Future Orientation

Higher Future Orientation Lower Future OrientationHave a propensity to save for the future Have a propensity to spend now rather than

save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on repetition of reproducible and routine sequences

The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification

Future Orientation

BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4

Singapore 5.07 Sweden 4.39 Zimbabwe 3.77 Poland 3.11

Switzerland 4.73 Japan 4.29 China 3.75 Argentina 3.08

S. Africa (B) 4.64 India 4.19 Iran 3.70 Russia 2.88

Netherlands 4.61 U.S. 4.15 Zambia 3.62

Austria 4.46 S. Africa (W) 4.13 Costa Rica 3.60

Denmark 4.44 Nigeria 4.09 Namibia 3.49

Canada (Eng) 4.44 Hong Kong 4.03 Thailand 3.43

South Korea 3.97 Kuwait 3.26

Germany (W) 3.95 Morocco 3.26

Mexico 3.87 Italy 3.25

Israel 3.85 Guatemala 3.24

Brazil 3.81 Hungary 3.21

Gender Egalitarianism

More Egalitarian Less EgalitarianHave more women in positions of authority Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females and males

Have lower levels of education of females relative to males

The degree to which the differentiation between male and female roles is stressed.

Gender Egalitarianism BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3

Hungary 4.08 Switzerland 3.42 Kuwait 2.58

Russia 4.07 Australia 3.40 South Korea 2.50

Denmark 3.93 U.S. 3.34

Namibia 3.88 Brazil 3.31

Singapore 3.70 S. Africa (W) 3.27

Colombia 3.67 Japan 3.19

England 3.67 Taiwan 3.18

S. Africa (B) 3.66 Germany (E) 3.06

France 3.64 China 3.05

Mexico 3.64 Zimbabwe 3.04

Venezuela 3.62 Nigeria 3.01

Malaysia 3.51 India 2.90

Argentina 3.49 Zambia 2.86

Hong Kong 3.47 Morocco 2.84

Assertiveness

High Assertiveness Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.

AssertivenessBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3

Albania 4.89 France 4.13 Switzerland (FR) 3.47

Nigeria 4.79 Ecuador 4.09 New Zealand 3.42

Germany (E) 4.73 Zambia 4.07 Sweden 3.38

S. Africa (W) 4.60 Italy 4.07

U.S. 4.55 Ireland 3.92

Morocco 4.52 Namibia 3.91

Mexico 4.45 Guatemala 3.89

Spain 4.42 Indonesia 3.86

S. Africa (B) 4.36 Denmark 3.80

Australia 4.28 China 3.76

Argentina 4.22 India 3.73

Brazil 4.20 Russia 3.68

Singapore 4.17 Thailand 3.64

England 4.15 Japan 3.59

In-group Collectivism

Collectivism Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive groups

Individuals look after themselves and their immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups The self is viewed as autonomous and independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between in-groups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between in-groups and out-groups

The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and interdependence in their families

In-group CollectivismBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3

Philippines 6.36 Costa Rica 5.32 Canada (E) 4.26

Iran 6.03 Greece 5.27 U.S. 4.25

India 5.92 Brazil 5.18 Australia 4.17

Morocco 5.87 Ireland 5.14 England 4.08

Zambia 5.84 S. Africa (B) 5.09 Finland 4.07

China 5.80 Austria 4.85 Germany (W) 4.02

Colombia 5.73 Israel 4.70 Switzerland 3.97

Singapore 5.64 Japan 4.63 Netherlands 3.70

Russia 5.63 Namibia 4.52 New Zealand 3.67

Zimbabwe 5.57 Germany (E) 4.52 Sweden 3.66

Nigeria 5.55 S. Africa (W) 4.50 Denmark 3.53

Venezuela 5.53 France 4.37

Argentina 5.51

Slovenia 5.43

Institutional Collectivism

Collectivism Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill their organizational obligations

Members assume they are independent of the organization ; believe it is important for them to bring their unique skills and abilities to the organization

Organizations take responsibility for employee welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge, skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and failures tests with individuals

The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level encourage and reward collective action

Institutional Collectivism

BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3

Sweden 5.22 Indonesia 4.54 Portugal 3.92

South Korea 5.20 Poland 4.53 Ecuador 3.90

Japan 5.19 Russia 4.50 Morocco 3.87

Singapore 4.90 Israel 4.46 Spain 3.85

New Zealand 4.81 Netherlands 4.46 Brazil 3.83

Denmark 4.80 S. Africa (B) 4.39 Germany (W) 3.79

China 4.77 Canada (E) 4.38 Italy 3.68

Ireland 4.63 India 4.38 Argentina 3.66

S. Africa (W) 4.62 U.S. 4.20 Germany (E) 3.56

Zambia 4.61 Nigeria 4.14 Hungary 3.53

Malaysia 4.61 Namibia 4.13

Taiwan 4.59 Zimbabwe 4.12

Mexico 4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance

High Power Distance Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion, and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility High upward social mobility

Information is localized Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy ensures parity in opportunities and development for all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill, knowledge)

The degree to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges

Power DistanceBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4

Morocco 5.80 Germany (W) 5.25 Qatar 4.73 Netherlands 4.11

Nigeria 5.80 Mexico 5.22 Israel 4.73 S. Africa (B) 4.11

El Salvador 5.68 Taiwan 5.18 Albania 4.62 Denmark 3.89

Zimbabwe 5.67 S. Africa (W) 5.16 Bolivia 4.51

Argentina 5.64 England 5.15

Thailand 5.63 Kuwait 5.12

Germany (E) 5.54 Japan 5.11

Russia 5.52 China 5.04

Spain 5.52 Austria 4.95

India 5.47 Egypt 4.92

Iran 5.43 U.S. 4.88

Brazil 5.33 Sweden 4.85

Zambia 5.31 Canada (E) 4.82

Namibia 5.29 Costa Rica 4.74

Humane Orientation

High Humane Orientation Low Humane Orientation

Others are important Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each other

People are expected to solve personal problems on their own.

Children should be obedient Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting well-being of others: The state is not actively involved

State provides social and economic support for individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of self-enhancement

The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,

caring, and kind to others.

Humane Orientation

BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4

Zambia 5.23 Indonesia 4.69 U.S. 4.17 Italy 3.63

Philippines 5.12 Ecuador 4.65 Taiwan 4.11 Poland 3.61

Ireland 4.96 India 4.57 Sweden 4.10 S. Africa (W) 3.49

Malaysia 4.87 Kuwait 4.52 Nigeria 4.10 Singapore 3.49

Thailand 4.81 Zimbabwe 4.45 Israel 4.10 Germany (E) 3.40

Egypt 4.73 Costa Rica 4.39 Argentina 3.99 France 3.40

China 4.36 Mexico 3.98 Hungary 3.35

S. Africa (B) 4.34 Russia 3.94 Greece 3.34

Japan 4.30 H. Kong 3.90 Spain 3.32

Australia 4.28 Slovenia 3.79 Germany (W) 3.18

Venezuela 4.25 Austria 3.72

Morocco 4.19 England 3.72

Georgia 4.18 Brazil 3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance

High Uncertainty Avoidance Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with others

Tendency toward being more informal in interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts Rely on word of others they trust vs. written contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior

Less tolerance for breaking rules Greater tolerance for rule breaking

The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover

situations in their daily lives.

Uncertainty AvoidanceBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4

Switzerland 5.37 England 4.65 Japan 4.07 Venezuela 3.44

Sweden 5.32 S. Africa (B) 4.59 Egypt 4.06 Olivia 3.35

Singapore 5.31 Canada 4.58 Israel 4.06 Guatemala 3.30

Denmark 5.22 France 4.43 Spain 3.97 Hungary 3.12

Germany (W) 5.22 Australia 4.39 Philippines 3.89 Russia 2.88

Austria 5.16 Taiwan 4.34 Costa Rica 3.82

Germany (E) 5.16 Nigeria 4.29 Italy 3.79

Finland 5.02 Kuwait 4.21 Iran 3.67

Switzerland 4.98 Namibia 4.20 Morocco 3.65

China 4.94 Mexico 4.18 Argentina 3.65

Malaysia 4.78 Zimbabwe 4.15 El Salvador 3.62

New Zealand 4.75 U.S. 4.15 Brazil 3.60

Zambia 4.10 South Korea 3.55

S. Africa (W) 4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities

• 112 characteristics and behaviors – Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or contributes to effective leadership

• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high

performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values. • Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a

common purpose or goal among team members. • Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making

and implementing decisions. • Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also

includes compassion and generosity. • Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership. • Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group

member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/ Value Based

Team Oriented

Participative Humane Oriented

Autonomous Self-Protective

HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH

Anglo Germanic Nordic SE Asian L. European L. American

SE Asian Confucian A.L. American E. European African L. European Nordic Anglo Middle Eastern Germanic

Germanic Anglo Nordic

SE Asian Anglo African Confucian A.

Germanic E. European Confucian A.Nordic SE Asian Anglo African Middle Eastern L. European L. American

Middle Eastern Confucian A.SE Asian L. American E. European

Confucian A.African E. European

L. European L. American African

Germanic Middle Eastern L. American E. European

African L. European

Middle Eastern E. European SE Asian Confucian A. Middle Eastern

L. European Nordic

Anglo Germanic Nordic

Intercultural Competence:

The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning, communication, and human relations has been mastered.”

(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with cultural

difference, moving from ethnocentrism to enthnorelativism• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as

to how to change “natural” behavior• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity

Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to all reality

• Similar to egocentrism• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative

evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group distinctions


• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict to

exist a recognition of difference has to exist• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial

since non-dominant groups are often inundated with reminders they are different

• Two stages of Denial: – Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar – Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different


• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural differences perceived as threatening

• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity • Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous

stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific defenses are created against them

• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual

• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism • We are all alike…they are all like me!!• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:

– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.

• Two aspects to minimization: – Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die

we are basically the same– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone

values capitalism


• The assumption that cultures can only be understood relative to one another and that particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context

• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness” that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference is neither good nor bad, it is just different

• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular group or individual

• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening, but most likely to be enjoyable


• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary

and preferable human condition• Two forms of development occur at this stage:

– Respect for Behavioral Differences– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--

Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired • Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is

adaptation and not assimilation• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into

another culture when necessary then returning to yours • Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills• Two phases to adaptation:

– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or comprehending it from another’s perspective

– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--

Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns different from his own and who has psychologically and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).

• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture is lost

• Two forms of integration exist: – Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the

cultural context in which it occurs– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the

experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points• Differences in values can affect:

– Leadership styles– Approaches to work– Success of workteams– Intervention approaches– Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture and function within the other culture. – what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective

elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points

• Intercultural competency and effective leadership require active thinking and energy….but are essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!

intercultural leadership: key concepts for international researchers

Documents