Essay Grade

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage
Publications.
•
Chapter 16, “Culture and Leadership” (pp. 433-471)
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. There is
more international trade, cultural exchange, and use of worldwide telecommunication systems.
People are becoming more interconnected, and in the age of the Internet and apps such as
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, they can communicate across cultures at the push
of a button. 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 and communicate within organizations with culturally diverse employees (House
& Javidan, 2004; Lo, Waters, & Christensen, 2017). Globalization has created a need to
understand how cultural differences affect leadership performance.
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 perspectives, tastes, trends, and technologies of many
other cultures. Third, they need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many
cultures. 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 meaning 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 beliefs, values, rules, norms,
symbols, and traditions 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 life, customs, and script of a group of people (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Related to culture are the terms multicultural and diversity. Multicultural implies an approach or
a system that takes more than one culture into account. It refers to the existence of multiple
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 orientation, 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 facets of culture, this section describes two
concepts that are closely related to culture and leadership: 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 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 recognize 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 culture 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 tolerant we are of other people’s cultural traditions or
practices.
Skilled leaders cannot avoid issues related to ethnocentrism. Even as they recognize their own
ethnocentrism, leaders also need 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 sensitive to the
legitimacy of the ways of other cultures. Skilled leaders are able to negotiate the fine line
between trying to overcome ethnocentrism and knowing when to remain grounded in their own
cultural values.
Prejudice
Closely related to ethnocentrism is prejudice. Prejudice is a largely fixed attitude, belief, or
emotion held by an individual about another individual or group that is based on faulty or
unsubstantiated data. It refers to judgments about others based on previous decisions or
experiences. Prejudice involves inflexible generalizations that are resistant to change or evidence
to the contrary (Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006). 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 orientation, socioeconomic status, and other independent contexts. Although
prejudice can be positive (e.g., thinking highly of another culture without sufficient evidence), it
is usually negative.
As with ethnocentrism, we all hold prejudices to some degree. Sometimes our prejudices allow
us to keep our partially fixed attitudes undisturbed and constant. Sometimes prejudice 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 than other-oriented. It helps us to
lessen our own anxiety and uncertainty at the expense of others. Moreover, attitudes of prejudice
inhibit understanding by creating a filter that limits our ability to see multiple aspects and
qualities of other people. Prejudice often shows itself in crude or demeaning comments that
people make about others. Both ethnocentrism and prejudice interfere with our ability to
understand and appreciate the human experience of others.
In addition to fighting their own prejudice, leaders face the challenge of dealing with the
prejudice of followers. These prejudices can be toward the leader or the leader’s culture.
Furthermore, it is not uncommon for a leader to face followers who represent several culturally
different groups, and these groups have their own prejudices toward each other. Skilled leaders
need to find ways to negotiate with followers from various cultural backgrounds as well as
determine in what ways they can accept each other’s differences, minimize them within the
organization, or use them for the benefit of the organization (Koch, Koch, Menon, & Shenkar,
2016).
Dimensions of Culture
Culture has been the focus of many studies across a variety of disciplines. In the past 30 years, a
substantial number of studies have focused specifically on ways to identify and classify the
various dimensions 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 studies have addressed the question of how to characterize cultures. For
example, Hall (1976) reported that a primary characteristic of cultures is the degree to which
they are focused on the individual (individualistic cultures) or on the group (collectivistic
cultures). Taking a different approach, Trompenaars (1994) surveyed more than 15,000 people in
47 different countries and determined that organizational cultures could be classified effectively
into two dimensions: egalitarian versus hierarchical, and person versus task orientation. The
egalitarian–hierarchical dimension 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 as opposed to stressing tasks to be accomplished.
Of all the research on dimensions of culture, perhaps the most referenced is the research of
Hofstede (1980, 2001). Based on an analysis of questionnaires obtained from more than 100,000
respondents in more than 50 countries, Hofstede identified five major dimensions on which
cultures differ: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–
femininity, and long-term–short-term orientation. Hofstede’s work has been the benchmark for
much of the research on world cultures.
In the specific area of culture and leadership, the studies by House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman,
and Gupta (2004) offer the strongest body of findings to date, 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 Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness research program. The GLOBE studies have generated a very large number of
findings on the relationship between culture and leadership.
The GLOBE research program, which was initiated by Robert House in 1991, is an ongoing
program that has involved more than 160 investigators to date. The primary purpose of the
project is to increase our understanding of cross-cultural interactions and the impact of culture on
leadership effectiveness. GLOBE researchers have used quantitative methods to study the
responses of 17,000 managers in more than 950 organizations, representing 62 different cultures
throughout the world. GLOBE researchers have collected 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 own
classification of cultural dimensions. Based on their research and the work of others (e.g.,
Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; McClelland, 1961; Triandis, 1995),
GLOBE researchers identified nine cultural dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, power distance,
institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, 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 cultures use rules, structures, and laws to make things more predictable
and less uncertain. For example, cultures that have a high tolerance for uncertainty, such as the
United States, are more likely to have a thriving entrepreneurial culture, where individuals are
willing to take risks and make quick business decisions. In other cultures, such as Japan, taking
risks and making daring decisions is not common; business deals are carefully thought through
and examined before any decision can be made. As a result, business deals and negotiations take
a long time, and require cultivation built on a level of trust and reliability that comes with a longterm commitment.
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. In addition, how leaders exercise this power—for example, do they choose
to use expert power rather than legitimate or reward power with their followers?—can be
impacted by cultural dimensions (Mittal & Elias, 2016). Saudi Arabia is a good example of a
country that has high power distance in that it sees power and authority as facts of life. Imagine
the cultural issues that arise for a Saudi Arabian software engineer who manages a department
for a high-tech startup in Silicon Valley where his American subordinates, who come from a low
power distance culture, openly approach and disagree with him on issues even though he is the
boss.
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. North Korea is an example of a culture with high institutional collectivism.
The people are ruled by a Supreme Leader who oversees the development of the country’s
values, which place a premium on collective efforts and nonmaterial incentives. As a result,
group cohesion and loyalty is strictly required. Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un has placed the
military at the center of the efforts to instill these values throughout North Korean society.
In-Group Collectivism
This dimension refers to the degree to which people express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in
their organizations or families. In-group collectivism is concerned with the extent to which
people are devoted to their organizations or families. They expect care from others in the ingroup, and they have high degrees of loyalty to the group in return. Consensus and collaborative
efforts are regarded as more valuable than individual action. For example, many Middle Eastern
and Asian cultures, such as Iran and Pakistan, are high in in-group collectivism. They regard
family and religious affiliation above all else, and individuals take great pride in their
membership in small groups such as their families and circles of close friends (Ye, Ng, & Lian,
2015).
Gender Egalitarianism
This dimension measures the degree to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role
differences and promotes gender equality. Gender egalitarianism is concerned with how much
societies de-emphasize members’ biological sex in determining the roles that members play in
their homes, organizations, and communities. A 2016 study found that the global gender gap is
greatest in the area of political empowerment. Iceland is considered to be one of the world’s
most gender-egalitarian countries, based on a firm belief that men and women should share
power and influence equally. An extensive welfare system makes it easier for both sexes to
balance work and family life (World Economic Forum, 2016).
Assertiveness
This dimension refers to the degree to which people in a culture are determined, assertive,
confrontational, and aggressive in their social relationships. Assertiveness is concerned with how
much a culture or society encourages people to be forceful, aggressive, and tough, as opposed to
encouraging them to be timid, submissive, and tender in social relationships. Germany is high in
the assertiveness dimension. In a study on upper-level managers in Germany, Brodbeck, Frese,
and Javidan (2002) found that German managers used straightforward and direct language and
that conflict and confrontational debate were acceptable approaches in a work environment.
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 future as opposed to enjoying the present and being
spontaneous. Americans, for example, believe they can plan and control the future and idealize
change for the sake of changing.
Performance Orientation
This dimension describes the extent to which an organization or a society encourages and
rewards group members for improved performance and excellence. Performance orientation is
concerned with whether people in a culture are rewarded for setting and meeting challenging
goals. Again, the United States is very high in performance orientation. One only has to look at
how the country’s education department ranks schools as thriving or failing based on the results
of standardized testing of students. If schools are not making the mark, there are interventions
and programs to try to bring the scores up. The United States also compares its academic success
with that of other countries to see where it is falling short or succeeding.
Humane Orientation
The ninth dimension refers to the degree to which a culture encourages and rewards people for
being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others. Humane orientation is concerned with
how much a society or an organization emphasizes sensitivity to others, social support, and
community values. Switzerland is a country that is often cited for its high humane orientation,
based on the Swiss people’s helpfulness to others during and after World War I and World War
II. The country espouses tolerance and responsibility as its central educational goals.
GLOBE researchers used these nine cultural dimensions to analyze the attributes of the 62
different countries in the study. These cultural dimensions formed the basis for studying how the
countries varied in their approach to leadership.
Clusters 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 analyze the similarities and differences between
cultural groups (clusters) 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, SubSaharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Confucian Asia, Southern Asia, Latin America,
and Nordic Europe (Figure 16.1). These 10 regional clusters are the groupings that were used in
all of the GLOBE studies.
To test whether the clusters, or groups of countries, were valid, researchers did a statistical
analysis of questionnaire data collected from individuals in each of the clusters. Their results
indicated that the scores of respondents within a cluster correlated with one another but were
unrelated to the scores of respondents 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 10 distinct groups.
However, further research has pointed out that there are limitations to the clusters developed by
the GLOBE studies (Brewer & Venaik, 2014). For example, India, which falls into the regional
cluster of Southern Asia, has been found to have nine distinct subcultural regions, some of whose
values are in contradiction to others (Dheer, Lenartowicz, & Peterson, 2015).
Characteristics of Clusters
In an effort to characterize the regional clusters, GLOBE researchers analyzed data from each of
the regions using the dimensions of culture described earlier. Table 16.1 provides a classification
of the cultural clusters in regard to how they scored on each cultural dimension. In the table, the
nine cultural dimensions are listed in the left-hand column; the high-score and low-score regional
clusters are provided in the next two columns. These are the regional clusters that were
significantly higher or lower on particular dimensions than other regions. From these data,
several observations can be made about the characteristics of these regional cultures.
Anglo
The Anglo cluster consists of Canada, the United States, Australia, Ireland, England, South
Africa (White sample), and New Zealand. These countries or populations were high in
performance orientation and low in in-group collectivism. This means it is characteristic of these
countries to be competitive and results oriented, but less attached to their families or similar
groups than other countries.
Confucian Asia
This cluster, which includes Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Japan,
exhibited high scores in performance orientation, institutional collectivism, and in-group
collectivism. These countries are results driven, and they encourage the group working together
over individual goals. People in these countries are devoted and loyal to their families.
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 uncertainty
avoidance. People in this cluster tend to be forceful and supportive of their coworkers and to
treat men and women equally. They are less 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 Netherlands, Switzerland, and
Germany, scored high in performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, and
uncertainty avoidance. They were low in humane orientation, institutional collectivism, and ingroup 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, Colombia, 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 collectivism, 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, and place less value on competition and goal-seeking behavior.
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 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 is made up of Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, and Turkey. These countries scored
high on in-group collectivism and low on future orientation, gender egalitarianism, and
uncertainty avoidance. People in these countries tend to show great pride in their families and
organizations. They are devoted and loyal to their own people. Furthermore, it is common for
these countries to treat people of different genders in distinct ways. In the Middle East,
orderliness and consistency are not stressed, and people do not place heavy reliance on policies
and procedures. There is a tendency to focus on current issues as opposed to attempting to
control the future.
Nordic Europe
The Nordic Europe cluster, which includes Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, exhibited several
distinctive characteristics. This cluster scored high on future orientation, gender egalitarianism,
institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance, and low on assertiveness, in-group
collectivism, and power distance. The Nordic people 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 family groups. In Nordic Europe, rules, orderliness, and consistency are
stressed. Assertiveness is downplayed in favor of modesty and tenderness, and power is shared
equally among people at all levels of society. Cooperation and societal-level group identity are
highly valued by the Nordic people.
Southern Asia
The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Thailand, and Iran form the Southern Asia cluster.
These countries exhibited high scores on humane orientation and in-group collectivism. Southern
Asia could be characterized as countries that demonstrate strong family loyalty and deep concern
for their communities.
Sub-Saharan Africa
The Sub-Saharan Africa cluster consists of Zimbabwe, Namibia, Zambia, Nigeria, and South
Africa (Black sample). These countries or populations expressed high scores on humane
orientation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, people generally are very concerned for and sensitive to
others. Concern for family and friends is more important than concern for self.
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 differences 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 leadership theory. According to implicit leadership
theory, individuals have implicit beliefs and convictions about the attributes and beliefs that
distinguish leaders from nonleaders and effective leaders from ineffective leaders (Junker & van
Dick, 2014). From the perspective of this theory, leadership is in the eye of the beholder
(Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Leadership refers to what people see in others when they
are exhibiting leadership behaviors.
To describe how different cultures view leadership 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 leadership
includes being visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and performance
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. It includes being participative and nonautocratic.
Humane-oriented leadership emphasizes being supportive, considerate, compassionate, and
generous. This type of leadership includes modesty and sensitivity to other people.
Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic leadership, which includes
being autonomous and unique.
Self-protective leadership reflects behaviors that ensure the safety and security of the leader
and the group. It includes leadership that is self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducing,
face 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 this
analysis, the researchers were able to identify a leadership profile for each cluster. Each profile
describes the relative importance and desirability that different cultures ascribe to different
leadership behaviors. The leadership profiles for each of the 10 culture clusters follow.
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 (Figure 16.2). In addition, the leader would be moderately charismatic/value
based, team 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.
Latin America Leadership Profile
Quite different from the Eastern European countries, the Latin American countries place the
most importance on charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, and self-protective leadership, and
the least importance on autonomous leadership (Figure 16.3). In addition, this cluster is
moderately 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 decision making.
Latin Europe Leadership Profile
The Latin Europe cluster values leadership that is charismatic/value based, team oriented,
participative, and self-protective (Figure 16.4). Independent leadership and the human side of
leadership are downplayed in this cluster. In short, the profile of the Latin Europe cluster centers
on leadership that is inspiring, collaborative, participative, and self-oriented, but not highly
compassionate.
Confucian Asia Leadership Profile
The leadership profile of the Confucian Asia countries describes a leader who is self-protective,
team oriented, and humane oriented (Figure 16.5). Though independent and to some extent
inspiring, this type of leader typically does not invite others to be involved in goal setting or
decision making. In sum, the Confucian Asia profile describes a leader who works and cares
about others but who uses status and position to make independent decisions without the input of
others.
Nordic Europe Leadership Profile
An ideal example of leadership for the Nordic European countries is leadership that is highly
visionary and participative, while being somewhat independent and diplomatic (Figure 16.6). For
these countries, it is of less importance that their leaders be humane oriented or self-protective.
Nordic Europeans prefer leaders who are inspiring, and who involve others in decision making.
They do not expect their leaders to be exceedingly compassionate, nor do they expect them to be
concerned with status and other self-centered attributes.
Anglo Leadership Profile
The profile of leadership for the Anglo countries emphasizes that leaders are especially
charismatic/value based, participative, and sensitive to people (Figure 16.7). Stated another way,
Anglo countries want leaders to be exceedingly motivating and visionary, not autocratic, and
considerate of others. Furthermore, they report that leaders