Social Work Cultural Competency looking through different lenses
What does it mean to be culturally competent? This question is the foundation for your examination of issues related to diversity and social justice this week. Culture influences all people and the lenses through which they view the world. Because the world comprises many cultures, these different perspectives represent opportunities for individuals to learn from one another, but they may become sources of conflict as well. Diversity encompasses more than racial and ethnic identitiesissues such as class and gender cannot be ignored in discussions of cultural competency.
PART 1:
As a social worker, you bring your own lensthat is, your own set of assumptions, biases, beliefs, and interpretationsinto your interactions with clients and the human services professionals with whom you collaborate. Human services organizations have their own cultures that influence their organizational lenses. An organizational lens reflects key assumptions about the individuals to whom the organization provides services. These assumptions influence the organizations policies and procedures which, in turn, impact service delivery. For example, an organization that focuses on understanding the perspectives of the clients it serves may allow clients to provide feedback about their client experience through membership on advisory boards or boards of directors. The clients may have the power to make recommendations and decisions about the organizations policies and procedures.
Understanding cultural lensesyour personal lens, as well as those of the organizations and other individuals with whom you work and interactwill enable you to better serve your clients.
Focus on the Paula Cortez case study for this Discussion. In this case study, four professionals present their perspectives on the Paula Cortez case. These workers could view Paulas case through a variety of cultural lenses, including socioeconomic, gender, ethnicity, and mental health. For this Discussion, you take the role of the social worker on the case and interpret Paulas case using two of these lenses.
Post how you, as a social worker, might interpret the needs of Paula Cortez, the client, through the two cultural lenses you selected. Then, explain how, in general, you would incorporate multiple perspectives of a variety of stakeholders and/or human services professionals as you treat clients.
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
CASE STUDY:
http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/SOCW/6060/CH/mm/case_study/index.html
PART 2:
Discussion 2: Administration and Culturally Competent Advocacy
Social work administrators can use their roles as leaders to increase cultural competency within their organizations and, thus, help to create positive social change. As social work administrators critically assess situations in which social injustice or inequality has taken place, they may discover an organizational need for increased cultural competency. However, changing the culture of an organization is not an easy task since administrators must address personal and organizational assumptions about diversity and cultural competency simultaneously.
For this Discussion, consider how social work administrators might apply their leadership roles to increase cultural competency within their organizations.
Post at least two strategies social workers may use to become advocates for social change through cultural competence. In addition, identify at least two challenges administrators may face in developing cultural competency within their organizations.
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
——–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.
I 0 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 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 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 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 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 facets 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 tolerant 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 sensitive to the legi timacy of the ways of other cul
tures. 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 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
I 0 15.2 Reducing Ethnocentrism
386 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE
involves inflexible generali za tions 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 independent 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 some 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 than other
oriented. It helps us to ach ieve balance for ourselves at the expense of
others. Moreover, attitudes of prejudice inhibit understanding by creating
a screen that filters and limits our ability to see multiple aspects and quali
ties of other people . Prejudice often shows itself in crude or demeaning
comments that peopl e make about others. Both ethnocentrism and 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 followers. 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 prejudices toward each other. A
skill ed leader needs to find ,,.a, s to negotiate ,,ith followers from various
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 identi~r and cla ss i~r 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 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 effectively into t\o dimensions: egalitarian versus hierarchical ,
and person versus task ori entation. 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 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-collectiism,
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 leadershifJ, the studies by House,
Hanges, Javiclan , Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) offer the strongest body 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 Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness research program. The GLOBE studies hae gen
erated a very large number of findings on the relationship between culture
and leadership.
The GLOBE research program, \hich \as initiated by Robert House in
1991 , is an ongoing program that has imohecl more than 160 investigators
to date. The primary purpose of the proj ect is to increase our understanding
of cross-cultural interactions and the impact of culture on leadership effec
tiveness. GLOBF. researchers have used quantitati ve methods to study 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 classifica 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: unce 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 the 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
Gender egalitariani sm is concerned with how much societies deempha
size members’ biological sex in determining the roles that members play
in their homes, organizations , and communities .
Assertiveness
This dimension 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 rewards group members for improved performance
and excellence. Perfo rmance orientation is concerned with whether peo
ple in a culture are rewarded fo r setting and meeting chall enging goals.
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 ori entati on is concerned with how much a society or an
organization emphasizes sens itivity to others, social support, and commu
nity values.
G LOBE researchers used these nine cultural dimensions to analyze the
attributes of the 62 different countries in the study. These cultural dimen
sions formed the basis for studying how the countries varied in their
approach to leadership.
I ~ 15.1 Cross-Cultural Management I ~ 15.2 Interpreting GLOBE Dimensions
390 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE
Clusters ofWorld 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 groupings that were used in all of the GLOBE 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 analys is 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 regions 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 lower on
particular dimensions than other regions. From these data, several observa
tions can be made about the characteristics of these regional 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 collectiism. This means it is characteristi c of these 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, exhibited high scores in performance orienta
tion, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism. These coun
tries are results driven , and they encourage the group working together
over individual goals. People in these countri es are devoted and loyal to
their families.
I jl 15.2 Leadership and Cultural Diversity
392 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE
Table 15.1 Cultural Clusters Classified on Cultural Dimensions
Cultural Dimension
Assertiveness
orientation
Future orientation
Gender egalitarianism
Humane orientation
In-group collectivism
Institutional
collectivism
Performance
orientation
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance
High-Score Clusters
Eastern Europe
Germanic Europe
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Eastern Europe
Nordic Europe
Southern Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Confucian Asia
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Middle East
Southern Asia
Nordic Europe
Confucian Asia
Anglo
Confucian Asia
Germanic Europe
No clusters
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Low-Score Clusters
Nordic Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
Middle East
Middle East
Germanic Europe
Latin Europe
Anglo
Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe
Germanic Europe
Latin America
Latin Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
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 forceful 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 egalitarianism, 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 these countries to treat people of different genders
in distinctly different ways. Women often are afforded less status than men,
and fewer women are in positions of authority than men. 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, 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 he Nordic 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 family groups. In
Nordic Europe, rules, orderliness, and consistency are stressed. Asserti ve
ness is down played 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 ordic people.
Southern Asia
T he Philippin es, Indones ia , Malaysia , India, T hailand, and Iran form
the Southern Asia cluster. These countries exhibited high scores on
humane ori entation and in-group collectivism. Southern As ia could be
characteri zed as countries that demonstrate strong family loyalty and deep
concern for their communities .
Sub-Saharan Africa
The Sub-Saharan Africa cluster consisted of Zimbabwe, Namibia,
Zambia, Nigeria, and South Africa (Black sample) . These countries or
populations expressed high scores on humane ori entation. In Sub-Saharan
Africa, people generally are very concerned for and sensitive to oth ers.
Concern for family and fri ends is more 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 attributes 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 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 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 includes
modesty and sensitivity to other people.
Autonomous leadership refers 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 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 thi s analysis, the researchers were able to identify a
leadership profile for each cluster. Each profile describes the relative impor
tance and desirabili ty that different cultures ascribe to different leadership
behaviors. The 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, 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.
Figure 15.2 Culture Clusters and Desired Leadership Behaviors:
