——–15
Culture and
Leadership
DESCRIPTION
As the title suggests, this chapter is about culture and leadership . Like the
previous chapter, this one is multifaceted and focuses on a collection of
related ideas rather than on a single unified theory. Our discussion in this
chapter will center on research that describes culture, its dimensions, and
the effects of culture on the leadership process.
Since World War II, globalization has been advancing throughout the
world. Globalization is the increased interdependence (economic, social,
technical, and political) between nations. People are becoming more inter­
connected. There is more international trade, cultural exchange, and use of
worldwide telecommunication systems. In the past I 0 years, our schools,
organizations, and communities have become far more global than in the
past. Increased globalization has created many challenges, including the
need to design effective multinational organizations, to identify and select
appropriate leaders for these entities, and to manage organizations with cul­
turally diverse employees (House & Javidan, 2004). Globalization has created
a need to understand how cultural differences affect leadership performance.
Globalization has also created the need for leaders to become compe­
tent in cross-cultural awareness and practice. Adler and Bartholomew
( 1992) contended that global leaders need to develop five cross-cultural
competencies: First, leaders need to understand business, political, and
cultural environments worldwide. Second, they need to learn the perspec­
tives , tastes, trends, and technologies of many other cultures. Third, they
need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures.
I0
15.1 Globalization
I~
15.1 Global vs. Local
383
384
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Fourth, leaders must be able to adapt to living and communicating in
other cultures. Fifth, they need to learn to relate to people from other
cultures from a position of equality rather than cultural superiority (Adler
& Bartholomew, 1992, p. 53). Additionally, Ting-Toomey ( 1999) said that
global leaders need to be skilled in creating transcultural visions. They
need to develop communication competencies that will enable them to
articulate and implement their vision in a diverse workplace. In sum,
today’s leaders need to acquire a challenging set of competencies if they
intend to be effective in present-day global societies.
Culture Defined
Anthropologists, sociologists, and many others have debated the mean­
ing of the word culture. Because it is an abstract term, it is hard to define,
and different people often define it in dissimilar ways. For our purposes,
culture is defined as the learned beli efs , values, rules, norms, symbols, and
traditi ons that are common to a group of people. It is these shared qualities
of a group that make them unique. Culture is dynamic and transmitted to
others. In short, culture is the way of 1ife , customs, and script of a group of
people (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Related to culture are the terms multicultural and diversity. Multicul­
tural implies an approach or a system that takes more than one culture into
account. It refers to the existence of multipl e cultures such as African,
American, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern. Multicultural can also
refer to a set of subcultures defined by race , gender, ethnicity, sexual ori­
entation, or age. Diversity refers to the existence of different cultures or
ethnicities within a group or an organization.
Related Concepts
Before beginning our discussion of the various fac ets of culture, this
section describes two concepts that are closely related to culture and lead­
ership: ethnocentrism and prejudice. Both of these concepts can have
impacts on how leaders influence others.
Ethnocentrism
As the word suggests, ethnocentrism is the tendency for individuals to
place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 385
observations of others and the world. People tend to give priority and value
to their own beliefs, attitudes, and values, over and above those of other
groups. Ethnocentrism is the perception that one’s own culture is better or
more natural than the culture of others. It may include the failure to rec­
ognize the unique perspectives of others. Ethnocentrism is a universal
tendency, and each of us is ethnocentric to some degree.
Ethnocentrism is like a perceptual window through which people from
one culture make subjective or critical evaluations of people from another
culture (Porter & Samovar, 1997). For example, some Americans think that
the democratic principles of the United States are superior to the political
beliefs of other cultures; they often fail to understand the complexities of
other cultures. Ethnocentrism accounts for our tendency to think our own
cultural values and ways of doing things are right and natural (Gudykunst
& Kim, 1997).
Ethnocentrism can be a major obstacle to effective leadership because
it prevents people from fully understanding or respecting the viewpoints of
others. For example, if one person’s culture values individual achievement,
it may be difficult for that person to understand another person whose cul­
ture emphasizes collectivity (i.e., people working together as a whole).
Similarly, if one person believes strongly in respecting authority, that person
may find it difficult to understand someone who challenges authority or
does not easily defer to authority figures. The more ethnocentric we are, the
less open or tol erant we are of other people’s cultural traditions or practices.
A skilled leader cannot avoid issues related to ethnocentrism . Even
though she recognizes her own ethnocentrism, a leader also needs to
understand-and to a degree tolerate-the ethnocentrism of others. In
reality, it is a balancing act for leaders. On the one hand, they need to
promote and be confident in their own ways of doing things; on the other
hand, they need to be sensiti ve to th e legi timacy of the ways of other cul­
tures. Skilled leaders are able to negotiate the fine lin e between trying to
overcome ethnocentrism and knowing when to remain grounded in their
own cultural values.
Prejudice
Closely related to ethnocentrism is pre judice. Preiudice is a largely fi xed
attitude, belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual
or group that is based on faulty or unsubstantiated data. It refers to judg­
ments about others based on previous decisions or experiences. Prejudice
I0
15.2 Reducing Ethnocentrism
386
LEADERSHIP
I
THEORY AND PRACTICE
involves inflexible generali za tion s that are resistant to change or evi­
dence to the contrary (Ponterotto & Pedersen , 1993 ). Prejudice often is
thought of in the context of race (e.g., European American vs. African
American), but it also applies in areas such as gender, age, sexual orien­
tation, and other ind ependent contexts. Although prejudice can be posi­
tive (e .g., thinking highly of another culture without sufficien t evidence ),
it is usually negative.
As Yith ethnocentrism , we all hold prejudices to som e degree. Some­
times our prejudices alJo,,· us to keep our partially fixed attitudes undis­
turbed and constant. Sometimes pre judice can reduce our anxiety because
it gives us a familiar way to structure our observations of others. One of the
main problems with prejudice is that it is self-oriented rather th an other­
oriented. It helps us to ach ieve balance for ourselves at the expense of
others. Moreover, attitudes of prejudice inhibit und erstand ing by creating
a scree n that filters and limits our ability to see multipl e aspects and quali­
ties of other people. Prejudice often shows itself in crude or demeaning
comments that peopl e make about others. Both ethnocentrism an d preju­
dice interfere \ith our ability to understand and appreciate the human
experience of others.
Jn addition to fighting their own prejudice, leaders also face the chal­
lenge of dealing with the prejudice of followe rs. These prejudices can be
toward the leader or the leader’s culture. Furthermore, it is not uncommon
for the leader to face followers who represent several culturally different
groups, and th ese groups have their own prejudic es toward each other. A
skill ed leader needs to find ,,.a,·s to negotiate ,,·ith followers from va rious
cultural backgrounds.
Dimensions of Culture
Culture has been the focus of many studies across a va ri ety of di sciplines.
In the past 30 yea rs, a substantial number of studies have fo cused specifi­
cally on ways to id enti~r and c la ss i~r the va rious dim ensions of culture.
Determining the basic dimensions or characteristics of different cultures is
the first step in being able to understand the relationships between them.
Several well-known studi es have addressed the question of hmv to char­
ac terize cultures. For example, Hall ( 1976) reported that a primary charac­
teristic of cultures is the degree to which they are focused on the individual
(individualistic cultures) or on the group (collecti,·istic cultures). Taking a
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 387
different approach, Trompenaars ( 1994) surveyed more than 15,000 people
in 47 different countries and determined that organizational cultures could
be classified effecti vely into t\·o dimensions: egalitarian versus hierarchical ,
and person versus task ori entation. The egalitarian-hierarchical dim ension
refers to the degree to which cultures exhibit shared power as opposed to
hierarchical power. Person-task orientation refers to the extent to which
cultures emphasize human interaction and not tasks to accomplish.
Of all the research on dimensions of culture, perhaps the most referenced
is the research of Hofstede ( 1980, 2001 ). Based on an analysis of question­
naires obtained from more than 100,000 respondents in more than 50
countries, Hofstede identified five major dimensions on which cultures
differ: power distance, uncertaintv avoidance, inclividualism-collecti·ism,
masculinity-femininity, and long-term-short-term orientation. Hofstede ‘s
work has been the benchmark for much of the research on world cultures.
In th e specifi c area of culture and leadershifJ, the studies by House,
Hanges, Javiclan , Dorfman , and Gupta (2004) offer the strongest bod y of
findings to elate, as published in the 800-page Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. These studies are called
the GLOBE studies, named for the Global Lead ership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness research program. The GLOBE studies ha·e gen­
erated a very large number of findings on the relationship between culture
and leadership.
The GLOBE research program , \hich \as initi ated by Robert House in
1991 , is an ongoing program that has im·ohecl more than 160 investigators
to date. The primary purpose of the proj ect is to in crease our understanding
of cross-cultural interactions and the impact of culture on leadership effec­
tiveness. GLOBF. researchers have used quantitati ve methods to stud y the
responses of 17,000 managers in more than 950 organizations, representing
62 different cultures throughout the world. GLOBF. researchers have col­
lected data in a variety of ways, including questionnaires, interviews, focus
groups, and content analysis of printed media. The findings of the GLOBE
studies will be provided in more detail throughout this chapter.
As a part of their study of culture and leadership , GLOBE researchers
developed their om1 classifi ca tion of cultural dimensions. Based on th eir
research and the work of others (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001 ; Kluckhohn &
Strodtbeck, 1961 ; McClelland, 1961; Triamlis, 1995 ), GLOBF. researchers
identified nine cultural dimensions: un ce rtainty avoidance, pO\·er distance,
institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism,
I~
15.1 Cross-Cultural Leadership
388
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation, and humane
orientation. In the following section, each of the dimensions is described.
Uncertainty Avoidance
This dimension refers to the extent to which a society, an organization,
or a group relies on established social norms, rituals, and procedures to
avoid uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance is concerned with the way cul­
tures use rules, structures, and laws to make things more predictable and
less uncertain.
Power Distance
This dimension refers to the degree to which members of a group
expect and agree that power should be shared unequally. Power distance
is concerned with the way cultures are stratified, thus creating levels
between people based on power, authority, prestige, status, wealth, and
material possessions.
Institutional Collectivism
This dimension describes the degree to which an organization or a
society encourages institutional or societal collective action. Institutional
collectivism is concerned with whether cultures identify with broader
societal interests rather than with individual goals and accomplishments.
In-Group Collectivism
This dimension refers to the degree to which people express pride,
loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. In-group col­
lectivism is concerned with the extent to which people are devoted to their
organizations or families.
Gender Egalitarianism
This dimension measures th e degree to which an organization or a
society minimizes gender role differences and promotes gender equality.
I
0
15.3 Leader and Gender Egalitarianism
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 389
Gend er egalitariani sm is concerned with how much societies deempha­
size m embers’ biological sex in determining the roles that members play
in their homes, organizations , and communities.
Assertiveness
This dim ension refers to the degree to which people in a culture are
determined, assertive, confrontational , and aggressive in their social relation­
ships. Assertiveness is concerned with how much a culture or society encour­
ages people to be forceful, aggressive, and tough, as opposed to encouraging
them to be timid, submissive, and tender in social relationships.
Future Orientation
This concept refers to the extent to which people engage in future-oriented
behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification.
Future orientation emphasizes that people in a culture prepare for the fuh1re
as opposed to enjoying the present and being spontaneous.
Performance Orientation
T his dimension describes the extent to which an organization or a soci­
ety encourages and rewa rds group members for improved performance
and excell ence. Perfo rmance orientati on is concerned with wheth er peo­
ple in a culture are rewarded fo r setting and m eeting chall enging goals.
Humane Orientation
The ninth dimension refers to th e degree to whi ch a culture encourages
and rewards peopl e for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to
others. Humane ori entati on is con cern ed with how much a society or an
organization em ph asizes sens itivity to others, social support, and commu­
nity values.
G LOBE research ers used these nine cultural dimensions to analyze the
attributes of the 62 different countries in the stud y. These cultural dimen­
sions form ed the basis for studying h ow the countries varied in their
approach to leadership.
I~
15.1 Cross-Cultural Management
I~
15.2 Interpreting GLOBE Dimensions
390
LEADERSHIP
Clusters
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
of World Cultures
GLOBE researchers divided the data from the 62 countries they studied
into regional clusters. 1 These clusters provided a convenient way to ana­
lyze the similarities and differences between cultural groups (cl usters), and
to make meaningful generalizations about culture and leadership.
To create regional clusters, GLOBE researchers used prior research
(e .g., Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), common language, geography, religion,
and historical accounts. Based on these factors, they grouped countries into
10 distinct clusters: Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan
Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Confucian Asia, Southern Asia, Latin
America, and Nordic Europe (Figure 15.1 ). These 10 regional clusters are
the groupi ngs that were used in all of the GLOB E studies.
Figure 15.1
Country Clusters According to GLOBE
Switzerland
(Francophone)
Spain
Portugal
SOURCE: Adapted from House , R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan , M., Dorfman , P. W., & Gupta, V.,
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, copyright© 2004,
Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
I
jl 15.2 Leadership and Culture
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 391
To test whether the clusters, or groups of countries, were valid, research­
ers did a statistical analysis of questionnaire data collected from individuals
in each of the clusters. Their results indicated that the scores of respon­
dents within a cluster correlated with one another but were unrelated to
the scores of responden ts in different clusters. From these findings, they
concluded that each cluster was unique. In sum, these regional clusters
represented a valid and reliable way to differentiate countries of the world
into l 0 distinct groups.
Characteristics of Clusters
In an effort to characterize the regional clusters, GLOBE researchers
analyzed data from each of the region s using the dimensions of culture
described earli er. Table 15.l provides a classification of the cultural clus­
ters in regard to how they scored on each cultural dimension. In the table,
the nine cu ltural dimensions are listed in the left-hand column; the high­
score and low-scorc regional clusters are provided in the next two columns.
These are the regional clusters that were significantly higher or lowe r on
particular dimensions than oth er regions. From these data, several observa­
tions can be made about the characteristics of these region al cultures.
Anglo
The Anglo cluster consists of Canada, the United States, Australia , Ire­
land, England, South Africa (Vhite sample), and New Zealand. These
countries or populations were high in performance orientation and low in
in-group collecti·ism. This means it is characteristi c of th ese countries to
be competitive and results orien ted , but less attached to their famili es or
similar groups than other countries.
Confucian Asia
This cluster, which includes Singapore, Hong Kong, Ta iwan, China,
South Korea , and Japan, exh ibited high scores in performance orienta­
tion, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism. These coun­
tries are results dri ven , and th ey encourage the group working together
ove r individual goals. Peopl e in these countri es are devoted and loyal to
their families.
I
jl 15.2 Leadership and Cultural Diversity
392
LEADERSHIP
Table 15.1
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Cultural Clusters Classified on Cu ltural Dimensions
Cultural Dimension
High-Score Clusters
Low-Score Clusters
Assertiveness
orientation
Eastern Europe
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Future orientation
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Middle East
Gender egalitarianism
Eastern Europe
Nordic Europe
Middle East
Humane orientation
Southern Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Germanic Europe
Latin Europe
In-group collectivism
Confucian Asia
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Middle East
Southern Asia
Anglo
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Institutional
collectivism
Nordic Europe
Confucian Asia
Germanic Europe
Latin America
Latin Europe
Performance
orientation
Anglo
Confucian Asia
Germanic Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Power distance
No clusters
Nordic Europe
Uncertainty avoidance
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Middle East
SOURCE: Adapted from House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &
Gupta, V. (Eds.) , Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, ©
2004, SAGE Publications, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
Eastern Europe
Included in this cluster are Greece, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia,
Poland, Russia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. These countries scored high on
assertiveness, in-group collectivism, and gender egalitarianism. They
scored low on performance orientation, future orientation, and uncer­
tainty avoidance . People in this cluster tend to be forc eful and supportive
of their coworkers and to treat men and women equally. They are less
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership
393
likely to be achievement driven, to emphasize strategic planning, and to
stress rules and laws as a way to maintain order.
Germanic Europe
The Germanic Europe countries, which include Austria, The Nether­
lands, Switzerland, and Germany, scored high in performance orientation,
assertiveness, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. They were low
in humane orientation, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism.
These countries value competition and aggressiveness and are more results
oriented than people oriented. They enjoy planning and investing in the
future and using rules and laws to give them control over their environment.
At the same time, these countries are more likely to be individualistic and
less group oriented. They tend not to emphasize broad societal groups.
Latin America
The Latin America cluster is made up of Ecuador, El Salvador, Colom­
bia, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Argentina, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and
Mexico. People in these countries scored high on in-group collectivism
and low on performance orientation, future orientation, institutional col­
lectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. People in these countries tend to be
loyal and devoted to their families and similar groups but less interested in
overall institutional and societal groups.
Latin Europe
Comprising Israel, Italy, Francophone Switzerland, Spain, Portugal,
and France, the Latin Europe cluster exhibited more moderate and fewer
high scores on any of the cultural dimensions, but they scored low on
humane orientation and institutional collectivism. It is characteristic of
these countries to value individual autonomy and to place less value on the
greater societal collective. Individuals are encouraged to watch out for
themselves and to pursue individual rather than societal goals.
Middle East
This cluster was made up of Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, and Tur­
key. These countries scored high on in-group collectivism and low on
394
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
future orientation , gender egalitari anism, and uncertainty avoidance.
People in these countries tend to show great pride in their families and
organizations. T hey are devoted and loyal to their own people. Further­
more , it is common for th ese countries to treat people of different genders
in distin ctly different ways. Women often are afforded less status than men,
and fewer wom en are in positions of authority than men. In the Middle
East, ord erliness and consistency are not stressed, and peopl e do not place
heavy reliance on policies and procedures. There is a tendency to focu s on
current issues as opposed to attemptin g to control the future.
Nordic Europe
The Nordic E urope cluster, which includ es D enmark, F inland , and
Sweden, exhibited several distinctive characteristics . This cluster scored
high on future orientation , gender egalitarianism , institutional collectiv­
ism , and uncertain ty avoidance, and low on assertiveness, in-group col­
lectivism , and pm’ er distance. T h e Nordi c peopl e place a high priority on
long-term success. Women are treated with greater equality. The Nordic
people identify with the broader society and far less with famil y groups. In
Nordic E urope, rules, orderliness, and consistency are stressed. Asserti ve­
ness is down played in favor of modesty and tend erness, and power is shared
equally among people at all levels of soci ety. Cooperation and soci etal­
level group identity are highly valued by the ordi c people.
Southern Asia
T he Philippin es, Indones ia , Malaysia , India, T hailand , and Iran form
the Southe rn Asia cluster. Th ese countries exhibited high scores on
humane ori entation and in-group coll ectivism. Southern As ia could be
characteri zed as countries that demonstrate stro ng family loyalty and deep
concern for their communiti es.
Sub-Saharan Africa
The Sub-Saharan Africa cluster consisted of Zimbabwe, Namibia,
Zambia, N igeria, and South Africa (Black sample) . These countri es or
popul ati ons expressed high scores on humane ori entation. In Sub-Saharan
Africa, people generally are very concerned for and sensitive to oth ers.
Concern for famil y and fri ends is m ore important than concern for self.
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 395
Leadership Behavior and Culture Clusters
The overall purpose of the GLOBE project was to determine how people
from different cultures viewed leadership. In addition, researchers wanted to
determine the ways in which cultural characteristics were related to culturally
endorsed leadership behaviors. In short, they wanted to find out how differ­
ences in cultures were related to differences in approaches to leadership.
The conceptualization of leadership used by GLOBE researchers was
derived in part from the work of Lord and Maher (1991) on implicit lead­
ership theory. According to implicit leadership theory, individuals have
implicit beliefs and convictions about the attribu tes and beliefs that distin­
guish leaders from nonleaders and effective leaders from ineffective lead­
ers. From the perspective of this theon·, leadership is in the eye of the
beholder (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004) . Leadership refers to
what people see in others \’hen they are exhibiting leadership behaviors.
To describe how different cultures view lead ership behaviors in others,
GLOBE researchers identified six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/
value based, team oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous,
and self-protective (House & Javidan, 2004). These global leadership
behaviors were defined in these studies as follows:
Charismatic/value-based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to
motivate, and to expect high performance from others based on
strongly held core values. This kind of leadersh ip includes being
vis ionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and per­
formance oriented.
Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common
purpose among team members. This kind of leadership includes
being collaborative, integrative, diplomatic , nonmalevolent, and
administratively competent.
Participative leadership reflects the degree to which leaders involve
others in making and implementing decisions. lt includes being
participative and nonautocratic .
Humane-oriented leadership emphas izes being supportive, consider­
ate, compassionate, and generous . This type of leadership includ es
modesty and sensitivity to other people.
Autonomous leadership refe rs to independent and individualistic
leadership, which includes being autonomous and unique.
~ 15.2 Global Leaders
396
LEADERSHIP
I THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Self-protective leadership reflects behaviors that ensure the safety
and security of the leader and the group . It includes lead ership that
is self-centered, status conscious, con flict inducing, fa ce saving, and
procedural.
These six global leadership behaviors emerged from the GLOBE research
and were used to assess the different ways in which various cultural clusters
viewed leadership. From thi s analysis, the researchers were able to identify a
leadership profile for each cluster. Each profile describes the relative impor­
tance and desirability that different cultures ascribe to different leadership
behaviors. T he leadership profiles for each of the 10 culhire clusters follow.
Eastern Europe leadership Profile
For the Eastern European countries, an ideal example of a leader would
be a person who was first and foremost independent while maintaining a
strong interest in protecting his or her position as a leader (F igure 15.2). In
addition , the leader would be moderately charismatic/value based, tea m
oriented, and humane oriented, yet largely uninterested in involving others
in the decision-making process. To sum up, this culture describes a leader
as one who is highly autonomous, makes decisions independently, and is to
a certain degree inspiring, team oriented, and attentive to human needs.
Figure 15.2
Culture Clusters and Desired Leadership Behaviors:
Eastern Europe
IAutonomous Leadership
w
~
a:
I
Self-Protective Leadership
~
I CharismaticNalue-Based Leadership
~
ITeam-Oriented Leadership
z
Ill
;:5
I Humane-Oriented Leadership
I Participative Leadership
SOURCE: Adapted from House et al. (2004) .
Chapter 15
I Culture and
Leadership 397
Latin America Leadership Profile
Quite different from the Eastern European countries, the Latin Ameri­
can countries place the most importance on charismatic/value-based,
team-ori en ted, and self-protective leadership, and the least importance on
autonomous leadersh ip (Figure 15. 3). In addition , this cluster is moder­
ately interested in leadership that is participative and humane oriented.
The profile for the Latin America cluster is of a leader who is charismatic/
value based but somewhat self-serving, collaborative, and inspiring. These
leaders tend to be moderately interested in people and their participation
in deci sion making.
Figure 15.3
Culture C lusters and Desired Leadership Behaviors:
Latin America
[ Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership

Purchase answer to see full
attachment