Topic 7: Diversity and Leadership

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Topic 7
DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP
georgiabluemanagement@gmail.com University of London

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
484 Topic 7 DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP
INTRODUCTION

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Topic 7 DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP 485
KEY CONCEPTS AND TOPIC OBJECTIVES

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
MINI LECTURE

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
ESSENTIAL READING
The Essential reading for this topic is:
• Nahavandi, A. The art and science of leadership. (Harlow: Pearson, 2015) 7th,
global edition. Chapter 2 The global and cultural contexts
• Yukl, G. Leadership in organizations. (Harlow: Pearson, 2013) 8th edition. Chapter

14 Cross-cultural leadership and diversity.
When you are reading through these chapters, pay particular attention to the
following key points:
• The difference between different models provided by research in the area of

diversity (particularly culture) and leadership, as well as some of the questions
that are left unanswered by these models
• The many vectors to consider when mapping any answer about culture and
gender
• The key assumptions about gender in leadership studies generally: pay

attention to the distinction between sex and gender, and how these two are
often conflated (to differing effects)
• The role that implicit (and explicit) biases play in excluding people from
leadership roles as well as providing an equal contribution/benefit to
organisations
• In light of the previous topic in this module, how cultural and gender issues
influence effective approaches to leadership development.
Spend some time reading and re-reading information about the work of GLOBE and
thinking about what the various cultural values identified actually mean. It may be
helpful for you to try to think of a practical example which illustrates each value.
Remember that all the essential reading for this programme is provided for you. Click
the link (which may take you to the Online Library where you can search for a journal
article) or click ‘next’ to go to the next page and start reading.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
NAHAVANDI CHAPTER 2 THE GLOBAL AND

CULTURAL CONTEXTS
A. Nahavandi, The Art and Science of Leadership (Pearson, 2015; 7th edition)
After studying this chapter, you will be able to:
1. Define culture and its three levels and explain the role it plays in
leadership.
2. Apply the following models of national culture to leadership situations:
• Hall’s cultural context
• Hofstede’s dimensions
• Trompenaars model
• GLOBE
3. Identify the impact of gender on leadership.
4. Address how leaders can develop a cultural mindset.
5. Present the steps organizations can take to become more multicultural.
The Leadership Question

What is considered effective leadership depends on the cultural context.
However, do you think there are some leadership “gold-standards,” some
characteristics and behaviors that leaders in all cultures must demonstrate? If so,
what do think they are?
Leadership is a social and an interpersonal process. As is the case with any such
process, the impact of culture is undeniable. Different cultures define leadership
differently and consider different types of leaders effective. A leader who is
considered effective in Singapore might seem too authoritarian in Sweden. The
charisma of an Egyptian political leader may be lost on the French or the Japanese.
The exuberant Brazilian leader will appear unnecessarily emotional to German
employees. In addition, gender and other cultural differences among groups affect
how leaders behave and how their followers perceive them. Understanding
leadership, therefore, requires an understanding of the cultural context in which it
takes place.
DEFINITION AND LEVELS OF CULTURE

Culture gives each group its uniqueness and differentiates it from other groups. Our
culture strongly influences us; it determines how we think and what we consider
right and wrong, and it influences what and whom we value, what we pay attention
to, and how we behave.
Definition and Characteristics

Culture consists of the commonly held values within a group of people. It is a set of
norms, customs, values, and assumptions that guides the behavior of a group. It

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
includes people’s lifestyle and their collective programming. Culture has

permanence; it does not change easily and is passed down from one generation to
another. Group members learn about their culture through their parents and family,
schools, and other social institutions and consciously and unconsciously transfer it to
the young and new members. In spite of this permanence, culture is also dynamic
and changes over time as members adapt to new events and their environment (see
Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Culture
• Shared by group members

• Transferred from one member to another
• Affects thinking and behavior
• Stable and dynamic
Levels of Culture
Culture exists at three levels (Figure 2.1). The first is national culture, defined as a set
of values and beliefs shared by people within a nation. Second, in addition to an
overall national culture, different ethnic and other cultural groups within a nation
might share a culture. Gender, religious, and racial differences, for example, fit into
this second level of culture differences. Although these groups share national cultural
values, they develop their own unique cultural traits. Some countries, such as the
United States, Canada, and Indonesia, include many such subcultures. Different
cultural, ethnic, and religious groups are part of the overall culture of these countries,
which leads to cultural diversity. Diversity, then, refers to the variety of human
structures, beliefs systems, and strategies for adapting to situations that exist within
different groups. It is typically used to refer to the variety in the second level of
culture. For example, widely held gender stereotypes affect our views of leadership
and create significant differences in power and authority between men and women
(Eagly and Carli, 2004). Many traditional male traits, such as aggression and
independence, often are associated with leaders, whereas traditional female traits of
submissiveness and cooperation are not.
Figure 2.1 The Three Levels of Culture
The third level of culture is organizational culture (sometimes referred to as corporate

culture) − the set of values, norms, and beliefs shared by members of an
organization. Given time, all organizations develop a unique culture or character
whereby employees share common values and beliefs about work-related issues.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
These organizational values typically include beliefs about leadership (Schein, 2004).
In many cases, leaders, and particularly founders, are instrumental in creating and
encouraging the culture. Legendary Apple founder, Steve Jobs, was known for
pushing his employees hard and being highly demanding (Love, 2013). His attention
to detail and focus on design became everyone’s obsession at Apple and is part of
the company’s culture. The much-talked-about bank, Goldman Sachs, is known as a
highly competitive organization that some say puts profit ahead of client interests
(Why I left Goldman Sachs, 2012). One of the company’s chief accountants, Sarah
Smith, says, “It’s a 24/7 culture. When you’re needed, you’re here. And if you’re
needed and you’re not answering your phone, you won’t be needed very long”
(Alridge, 2009). Another former employee describes the culture as “completely
money-obsessed. I was like a donkey driven forward by the biggest, juiciest carrot I
could imagine. Money is the way you define your success” (Alridge, 2009).
A very different culture is that of office furniture manufacturer Herman Miller. The
company wants employees to bring their “whole person” to work, and it believes that
openness breeds loyalty. D.J. Dupree, the company founder, was known for his focus
on employees (Pattison, 2010). As a result, the company offers onsite daycare, full
benefits, and various work options such as flexible time and telecommuting.
Similarly, Google’s much-celebrated culture is based on working as a caring family
(Boies, 2013). Company cofounder, Larry Page, says: “My job as a leader is to make
sure everybody in the company has great opportunities, and that they feel they’re
having a meaningful impact and are contributing to the good of society” (Chatterjee,
2012). With many benefits and perks, and a focus on collaboration and fun, Google
considers its culture as one of its keys to success. These organizations are all effective,
but they have different organizational cultures with different models of leadership
effectiveness. At Herman Miller and Google, employee satisfaction is key to
effectiveness; the leaders are focused on the followers. At the Apple and Goldman,
the leader pushes for performance and outcomes.
Because national culture addresses many different aspects of life, it exerts a strong
and pervasive influence on people’s behavior in everyday activities and in
organizations. The influence of organizational culture is, generally, limited to
work-related values and behaviors. All three levels of culture shape our views and
expectations of our leaders. Whereas people in the United States do not expect
leaders to be infallible, in many other cultures, leaders’ admission of mistakes would
be intolerable and a deadly blow to their authority and ability to lead. For example,
several U.S. presidents − most recently President Clinton − when faced with no other
option, recognized their mistakes openly and professed to have learned from them.
Many in the United States expected President Bush to admit mistakes in the war
against Iraq, although no apologies have been forthcoming. Such admissions are
rarely expected or happen in other countries, and if they do, they are interpreted as
signs of weakness. Former president Vincente Fox of Mexico steadfastly refused to
admit any error or to change course in the handling of his country’s economy in
2001. When, in 1998, Indonesian president Suharto apparently admitted mistakes
that contributed to his country’s economic crisis, he was seen as weak. Indonesians
did not forgive him, and he eventually resigned.
Each country and region in the world develops a particular organizational and
management style based largely on its national culture. This style is called the
national organizational heritage (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1992). Although differences
distinguish one organization from another and one manager from another, research
indicates that national heritage is noticeable and distinct. French companies, for
instance, share some characteristics that make them different from companies in
other countries. When compared with their Swedish counterparts, they are more
hierarchical and status oriented.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
MODELS OF NATIONAL CULTURE

Because understanding and handling cultural differences effectively are key to
organizational effectiveness in increasingly global organizations, researchers have
developed several models for understanding national cultures. These models provide
descriptions of different cultural values and help us group people into broad
categories by proposing what some have called sophisticated stereotypes (Osland et.
al., 2000). Just like regular stereotypes, these are generalizations about people.
However, they are based on reliable and valid research, rather than on personal
experience or opinion. While they have validity and can be used to make better
decisions, you should be aware that culture is just one factor among many that
impact how people behave. This section reviews four models of national culture with
direct application to understanding leadership.
Hall’s Cultural Context Framework

One of the simplest models for understanding culture, Edward Hall’s model, divides
communication styles within cultures into two groups: high context and low context
(Hall, 1976; Hall and Hall, 1990). In Hall’s model, context refers to the environment
and the information that provide the background for interaction and
communication. Leaders from high-context cultures rely heavily on the context,
including nonverbal cues such as tone of voice and body posture and contextual
factors such as title and status, to communicate with others and understand the
world around them. They use personal relationships to establish communication.
Leaders from low-context cultures focus on explicit, specific verbal and written
messages to understand people and situations and communicate with others (see
Figure 2.2). In high-context cultures, communication does not always need to be
explicit and specific, and trust is viewed as more important than written
communication or legal contracts. In contrast, in low-context cultures, people pay
attention to the verbal message. What is said or written is more important than
nonverbal messages or the situation. People are, therefore, specific and clear in their
communication with others.
Figure 2.2 High- and Low-Context Cultures
High and low context fall within a continuum. As such Asian cultures such as Japan,
China and Korea are higher context that many African, Latin American, or Middle
Eastern countries that are still higher context than Northern Europeans and
Americans. The difference between high and low context can explain many
cross-cultural communication problems that leaders face when they interact with
those of a culture different from their own. The lower-context European and North

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
American leaders might get frustrated working with followers from higher-context
Asian or Middle Eastern cultures because the low-context leaders focus on specific
instructions while the high-context followers aim at developing relationships.
Similarly, high-context leaders might be offended by their low-context followers’
directness, which they may interpret as rudeness, lack of respect, or a challenge to
their authority.
The communication context, as presented by Hall, is one of the ways culture impacts
our views and expectations of leaders.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Researcher Geert Hofstede developed one of the often-cited classifications of culture,
known as Hofstede’s dimensions (Hofstede, 1992; Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede,
Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). He originally conducted more than 100,000 surveys of
IBM employees in over 40 countries, supplemented by another series of surveys that
led to the inclusion of yet another dimension. He used the results to develop five
basic cultural dimensions along which cultures differ: individualism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and time orientation (Table 2.2). According to
Hofstede, the combination of these five dimensions lends each national culture its
distinctiveness and unique character.
Table 2.2 Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions
Individualism The extent to which individuals, or a closely knit social

structure, such as the extended family, is the basis for social
systems. Individualism leads to reliance on self and focus on
individual achievement.
Power distance The extent to which people accept unequal distribution of
power. In higher-power distance cultures, there is a wider gap
between the powerful and the powerless.
Uncertainty The extent to which the culture tolerates ambiguity and
avoidance uncertainty. High uncertainty avoidance leads to low
tolerance for uncertainty and a search for absolute truths.
Masculinity The extent to which assertiveness and independence from
others is valued. High masculinity leads to high sex-role
differentiation, focus on independence, ambition, and
material goods.
Time orientation The extent to which people focus on past, present, or
future. Present orientation leads to a focus on short-term
performance.
When compared with other nations, the United States is highest in individualism
(closely followed by Australia), is below average on power distance and uncertainty
avoidance, is above average on masculinity, and has a moderate to short-term time
orientation. These scores indicate that the United States is a somewhat egalitarian
culture in which uncertainty and ambiguity are well tolerated; a high value is placed
on individual achievements, assertiveness, performance, and independence; sex
roles are relatively well defined; and organizations look for quick results with a focus
on the present. Japan, on the other hand, tends to be considerably lower in
individualism than the United States, higher in power distance, masculinity (one of
the highest scores), and uncertainty avoidance, and with a long-term orientation.
These rankings are consistent with the popular image of Japan as a country in which

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
social structures, such as family and organizations are important, their power and
obedience to them tend to be absolute, risk and uncertainty are averted, gender
roles are highly differentiated, and high value is placed on achievement.
Harry Triandis, a cross-cultural psychologist, expanded on some of Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions by introducing the concepts of tight and loose, and vertical and
horizontal cultures. Triandis (2004) suggests that uncertainty avoidance can be better
understood by further classifying cultures into either tight or loose categories. In
tight cultures, such as Japan, members follow rules, norms, and standards closely.
Behaviors are, therefore, closely regulated; those who do not abide by the rules are
criticized, isolated, or even ostracized, depending on the severity of the offense.
Loose cultures, such as Thailand, show much tolerance for behaviors that are
considered acceptable, and although rules exist, violating them is often overlooked.
Triandis (2004) places the United States in the moderate tight−loose category and
suggests that the U.S. culture has moved toward becoming looser and more tolerant
over the past 50 years.
Triandis further refined the concept of individualism/collectivism by arguing that

there are different types of collectivist and individualist cultures (1995). He proposes
that by adding the concept of vertical and horizontal, we can gain a much richer
understanding of cultural values (Table 2.3). Vertical cultures focus on hierarchy;
horizontal cultures emphasize equality (Triandis et al., 2001). For example, although
Sweden and the United States are both individualist cultures, the Swedes are
horizontal individualists (HV) and see individuals as unique but equal to others. In the
United States, which is more vertical individualist (VI), the individual is viewed as not
only unique but also superior to others. Similarly, in a horizontal collectivistic (HC)
culture, such as Israel, all members of the group are seen as equal. In vertical
collectivistic (VC) cultures, such as Japan and Korea, authority is important and
individuals must sacrifice themselves for the good of the group. The
horizontal−vertical dimension, because it affects views of hierarchy and equality, is
likely to affect leadership.
Table 2.3 Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism
Vertical (Emphasis on Horizontal (Emphasis on

Hierarchy) Equality)
Individualistic Focus on the individual where Although the focus is on each
each person is considered individual being unique,
unique and superior to individuals are considered
others, often based on equal to others without a
accomplishments and strong hierarchy.
performance, or material
wealth.
Example: United States Example: Sweden
Collectivistic Strong group feeling with clear All group members are
rank and status differentiation considered equal; the group
among group members; has little hierarchy, and there is
members feel obligation to strong focus on democratic and
obey authority and sacrifice self egalitarian processes. Example:
for good of the group if needed. Israel
Example: Japan
Example: Japan
Source: Based on Triandis et al., 2001.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Hofstede’s cultural values model along with Triandis’ concepts provide a strong basis
for explaining cultural differences. Hoftsede continues to be used as the basis for
research on cross-cultural differences as well as for training leaders to work across
cultures. Other researchers have provided additional means of understanding
culture.
Trompenaars’ Dimensions of Culture

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner provide a complex model that helps leaders
understand national culture and its effect on organizational and corporate cultures
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012). They developed a model based on 80,000
participants in organizations in close to 50 cultures and further tested it by adding
data and anecdotes from the many training programs they conducted with 60,000
people in 25 countries. Based on their research and experience, Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner have found that there clearly is no one best way to manage
organizations and that universal principles of management are not so universal and
do not work well across all cultures (2012). More significantly, they suggest that while
behaviors many appear the same across cultures, their meaning is often different.
They propose that although understanding national culture requires many different
dimensions, cross-cultural organizational cultures can be classified more efficiently
based on two dimensions: egalitarian-hierarchical and orientation to the person or
the task. When combined, they yield four general cross-cultural organizational
cultures: incubator, guided missile, family, and Eiffel Tower (Figure 2.3). The four
general types combine national and organizational cultures. The leader’s role in each
type differs, as do methods of employee motivation and evaluation.
Figure 2.3 Trompenaar’s Cross-Cultural Organizational Cultures
Incubator cultures are egalitarian and focus on taking care of individual needs.
Examples of incubator cultures can be found in many start-up, high-technology firms
in the United States and Great Britain (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012). In
these typically individualist cultures, professionals are given considerable latitude to
do their jobs. Leaders in such organizations emerge from the group rather than being
assigned. Therefore, leadership is based on competence and expertise, and the
leader’s responsibility is to provide resources, manage conflict, and remove obstacles.
The guided missile is also an egalitarian culture, but the focus is on task completion
rather than individual needs. As a result, the organizational culture is impersonal and,
as indicated by its name, directed toward accomplishing the job. Trompenaars uses
the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as an example of the
guided missile. In NASA and other guided-missile organizations, leadership is based

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
on expertise, and follower participation is expected. People work in teams of

professionals who have equal status, with performance being the primary criterion
for effectiveness.
The family and Eiffel Tower cultures both are hierarchical. Whereas the Eiffel Tower is
focused on the task, the family takes care of individuals. As its name indicates, the
family culture functions like a traditional family. The leader’s role is that of a powerful
father figure, who is responsible for the welfare of all members. Trompenaars
suggests that family organizational cultures are found in Greece, Italy, Singapore,
South Korea, and Japan. The Eiffel Tower is hierarchical and task focused. Consistent
with the name − the Eiffel Tower − many French organizations have such a culture,
characterized by a steep, stable, and rigid organization. The focus is on performance
through order and obedience of legal and legitimate authority. The leader is the
undisputed head of the organization and has full responsibility for all that occurs.
Trompenaars’ dimensions and focus on culture in organizations provides a rich

model for understanding culture within an organizational context. The most recent
approach to explaining cultural differences will be presented next.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
You lead a team made up of people from several different countries. They are all
very well qualified and experts in their fields. However, they have trouble
working together. They constantly argue over work processes and their
arguments are getting increasingly personal. They blame their different
personalities, but you think culture has something to do with the problems.
What do you do?
GLOBE − Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research

One of the most extensive research projects about cross-cultural differences and
leadership was conducted by a group of researchers in 62 countries (House et al.,
2004). Despite debates about the methodology used by researchers of the Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research (GLOBE; Graen, 2006;
House et al., 2006), the model is comprehensive and highly useful in understanding
leadership and culture. The findings from GLOBE suggest that culture impacts, but
does not predict, leadership behavior through people’s expectations − what
researchers call culturally endorsed theory of leadership, or CLT. Additionally, GLOBE
research indicates that leaders who behave in accordance with their cultures’ CLT
tend to be most effective (Dorfman et al., 2012).
The GLOBE research suggests nine cultural values, some of which are similar to
Hoftstede (House et al., 2002):
• Power distance: The degree to which power is distributed equally
• Uncertainty avoidance: The extent to which a culture relies on social norms and
rules to reduce unpredictability (high score indicates high tolerance for
uncertainty)
• Humane orientation: The degree to which a culture values fairness, generosity,

caring and kindness
• Collectivism I − Institutional: The degree to which a culture values and practices

collective action and collective distribution of resources

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
• Collectivism II − In group: The degree to which individuals express pride in and

cohesion with their family or organizations
• Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals are assertive, direct, and

confrontational
• Gender-egalitarianism: The extent of gender differentiation (high score indicates

more differentiation)
• Future orientation: The extent to which a culture invests in the future rather than
in the present or past
• Performance orientation: The degree to which a culture values and encourages

performance
Based on their findings, GLOBE researchers defined 10 country clusters. These, along
with the key high and low cultural values associated with each of the clusters, are
depicted in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Country Clusters Based on GLOBE
Source: Based on information in House et al. Culture, leadership and organizations:

The GLOBE study of 62 countries (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004).
In reviewing Figure 2.4, you can see for example that countries in the Anglo cluster
such as the United States, Canada, and England place a high value on performance
orientation and low value on in-group collectivism. Those in the Confucian cluster,
for example China and South Korea, value performance and both types of
collectivism and are not low on any of the other cultural values. Similarly, people in
the African cluster, when compared to other cultures, only rank humane orientation
high. The Latin American cluster is high on in-group collectivism, but low on
institutional collectivism, performance, and future orientation, and has a low
tolerance for uncertainty. Further clarification of the clusters and the countries within
them provides more details. For instance, in countries with high power distance, such
as Thailand and Russia, communication is often directed one way, from the leader to
followers, with little expectation of feedback. Finally, in cultures that value kindness

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
and generosity, such as the Philippines or Egypt, leaders are likely to avoid conflict
and act in a caring but paternalistic manner (Javidan and House, 2001).
Although some of the dimensions proposed by GLOBE are similar to those in the
other models we have presented, others are unique and refine our understanding of
culture. Additionally, GLOBE’s unique contribution is the development of six CLTs.
These are as follows:
• Charismatic and value-based: Leadership based on the ability to inspire and
motivate followers through core values and high-performance expectations
• Team oriented: Leadership focused on team building and developing a
common goal
• Participative: Leadership based on involving followers in decision making
• Humane orientated: Leadership based on consideration for followers through
compassion and generosity
• Autonomous: Leadership based on independence and individualism
• Self-protective: Leadership focused on safety and security of individual and
group through self-enhancement and face saving
Using cultural values, country clusters, and CLTs, the GLOBE research identifies
leadership profiles for each country clusters. Table 2.4 summarizes these cultural
leadership profiles; for each country cluster, the CLTs are presented in order of
importance (i.e., the first one is the most significant). It is important to note that the
cultural values presented in Figure 2.4 indicate cultural practices as they are, whereas
those in Table 2.4 are the ideals, the Culturally endorsed Leadership Theories (CLTs),
and represent what people in that culture think ideal leadership should be. For
instance, people in the Confucian Asian cluster consider ideal leaders to be
self-protective, team oriented, humane, and charismatic; Latin Americans place
charisma first, whereas Germanic European see autonomy as an ideal characteristic of
leaders.
Table 2.4 Cultural Leadership Profile
Cultural Cluster CLT

Confucian Asia Self-protective; team oriented; humane oriented; charismatic
Southern Asia Self-protective; charismatic; humane oriented; team oriented;
autonomous
Latin America Charismatic; team-oriented; self-protective; participative
Nordic Europe Charismatic; participative; team oriented; autonomous
Anglo Charismatic; participative; humane oriented; team oriented
Germanic Europe Autonomous; charismatic; participative; humane oriented
Latin Europe Charismatic; team oriented; participative; self-protective
Eastern Europe Autonomous; self-protective; charismatic; team-oriented
Africa Humane oriented; charismatic; team oriented; participative
Middle East Self-protective; humane oriented; autonomous; charismatic
Source: Based on information in House et al., 2004; Dorfman et al., 2012.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
GLOBE further identifies several categories of leader behavior that are either
universally desirable or undesirable or whose desirability is contingent on the culture
(Dorfman et al., 2012; House et al., 2004). For example, being trustworthy, just, and
honest tend to have universal appeal. Similarly, charismatic/value-based leadership is
generally desirable across most cultures and team-based leadership is believed to
contribute to outstanding leadership in many cultures. Although participative
leadership is seen generally as positive, its effectiveness depends, or is contingent on,
the culture. Autonomous leaders are desirable in some cultures but not in all, and
being self-protective is seen as hindering effective leadership in most cultures. Even
some behaviors that appear somewhat universal reflect cultural differences. For
example, Americans and the British highly value charisma, whereas Middle Easterners
place less importance on this behavior from their leader. Nordic cultures are less
favorable toward self-protective leadership behaviors, whereas Southern Asians
accept it more readily (House et al., 2004). Not surprisingly, being malevolent,
irritable, and ruthless are universally undesirable, whereas being ambitious, elitist,
and humanistic are culturally contingent, meaning desirable in some cultures, but
not all cultures (Dorfman et al., 2012).
Because of the large number of countries included in the studies and the extensive
research that are conducted, GLOBE provides a comprehensive model for
understanding cultural differences in leadership. Knowing the cultural values within
each cluster and those held by people in each country, and being aware of their
leadership ideals, can be of considerable value when working across cultures. The
information provides a starting point for interaction and can assist leaders in
understanding what their followers may expect and value, how to relate to them
most successfully, what may motivate them, and generally, how to manage them
more effectively.
APPLYING WHAT YOU LEARN

Using Culture to Be Effective
Culture at all levels can have a powerful impact on both leaders and followers.
The following are some things to keep in mind to manage culture effectively:
• Be aware and conscious of your own culture and its various components.
What are your values? How important are they to you? What are the
conflicts you experience?
• Understand the culture of your organization. Is cooperation or competition

valued? How formal is the environment? How much is performance valued?
How about citizenship? What is rewarded?
• Be clear about any areas of agreement and disagreement between your

culture and value system and that of your organization.
• Build on the agreements; they are likely to provide you with opportunities
to shine. For example, if you value competition and high performance and
so does the organization, you are likely to feel right at home.
• Carefully evaluate the disagreements. For example, you value competition

and individual achievements, whereas the organization is highly team
oriented. Can you adapt? Can you change the organization? A high degree
of ongoing conflict among primary values is likely to lead to frustration and
dissatisfaction.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
The models of culture presented in this section provide different ways of

understanding national and organizational culture. Each model is useful, but can also
be misapplied if used to stereotype national or organizational cultures. Whereas Hall
and Hofstede focus primarily on national culture, Trompenaars provides a model that
combines national and organizational cultural and has a strong practitioner focus.
GLOBE has one of the most comprehensive models available with a strong focus on
leadership characteristics across cultures. All four are used throughout the book to
provide a cross-cultural perspective on leadership.
GROUP CULTURE: GENDER AND LEADERSHIP

Anne Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, who quit her job as director of policy planning in the State
Department recently reignited an on-going debate about whether women can
achieve the same success as men and how they can balance their personal and work
life in the article “Why women still can’t have it all.” Slaughter states: “I still strongly
believe that women can have it all (and that men can too). I believe that we can have
it all at the same time. But not today, not with the way America’s economy and
society are currently structured” (Slaughter, 2012). While many disagree with first part
of her assertions (women can’t have it all), there is strong consensus about the
second part that suggests that women’s experiences in the workplace are different
than men’s.
Talking about the 2008 financial crisis and how the lack of diversity in the financial
industry may have contributed to it, Christine Lagarde, former French finance
minister and head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said: “If Lehman Brothers
had been ‘Lehman Sisters,’ today’s economic crisis clearly would look quite different”
(Lagarde, 2010). Are there substantial and significant differences between how men
and women lead and what they experience at work? There are no easy or simple
answers.
Stephanie Shirley, the British businesswomen who was one of the first women to
start a software company in the 1960s, focused on creating opportunities for other
women, partly because she faced considerable discrimination in her own career.
When describing the business climate she faced, she says: “All the talk was about
money, profits, cash flow, whereas I was much more interested in team work,
innovation, excellence, quality assurance − some things that people consider the
softer things of management” (Martin, 2013). Leaders such as Francis Hesselbein,
president and CEO of the Leader to Leader institute, and former chief executive of the
Girl Scouts, Nancy Bador, former executive director of Ford Motor Company, and
Barbara Grogan, founder of Western Industrial Contractors, chair of the Volunteer
Board of America and the first female chair of the Board of the greater Denver
Chamber of Commerce, use an inclusive management style that they consider a
female style of leadership. They shun the hierarchical structures for flat webs in which
they are at the center rather than at the top. Carol Smith, vice president for Conde
Nast’s Bon Appetit and Gourmet Group, strongly believes that women are better
managers, “In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better
advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk.” She further
believes that men are better at letting things roll off their back while women rethink
and replay events (Bryant, 2009m). Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett Packard, former
CEO of EBay, and rated by Forbes #18 “Power Women” in 2012, is known for her
unconventional, noncommand and control use of power. She believes that having
power means that you must be willing to not have any (Sellers, 2004). Gerry
Laybourne, founder and former CEO of Oxygen Media, the executive who built the
top-rated children’s television network Nickelodeon, considers competition to be
“nonfemale.” When she found out that Fortune magazine was ranking women in
business, she declared, “That’s a nonfemale thing to do. Ranking is the opposite of

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
what women are all about” (Sellers, 1998: 80). She contends women lead and
manage differently and are better than men at making connections among ideas and
building partnerships and joint ventures (Sellers, 2009).
Many other successful female business leaders, however, do not see their leadership
styles as drastically different from that of their male counterparts. Cherri Musser, chief
information officer at EDS and formerly at GM, recommends, “You don’t focus on
being female − you focus on getting the job done. If you draw too much attention to
your gender, you’re not a member of the team” (Overholt, 2001: 66). Darla Moore,
chief executive officer of the investment company Rainwater, Inc., and the first
woman to be on the cover of Fortune magazine and have a business school named
after her, argues that women’s worse sin is to think, “ ‘You should be a nice girl. You
ought to fit in. You should find a female mentor.’ What a colossal waste of time”
(Sellers, 1998: 92). She contends, “There are only glass ceilings and closed doors for
those who allow such impediments” (Darla Moore Speech, 2007).
Whether women and men lead differently or not, there are differences between them
in terms of the presence and power each group has in organizations around the
world.
Current State of Women in Organizations

In the United States, women make up almost 50 percent of the workforce and 58
percent of women are working outside the home (Women in the Labor Force, 2013).
However, they only hold 10 percent of the executive positions in business (Statistical
overview of women in the workplace, 2013). In the United States, women’s income
continues to lag behind that of men at about 77 percent of men’s income (Drum,
2012). In 2011, women held only 15.2 percent of corporate officer positions (Fulfilling
the promise, 2012). As of 2013, there were only 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 (4
percent) in the United States and another 25 in the next 500 companies (5 percent;
Women CEOs, 2013). It is estimated that if the current trends continue, by 2016
maybe 6 percent of top leadership positions will be held by women (Helfat, Harris,
and Wolfson, 2006). The salary gap between men and women is further evidence of
the challenges women face. According to Forbes, only 2 of the 100 highest paid
executives in United States in 2012 were women, ranking number 40 and 88
(America’s highest paid executives, 2012). Similar trends exist all over the world. For
example, in Canada 62 percent of women work, 68 percent in China, and 56 percent
in Russia; with approximately around 50 percent in most Western European countries
(Labor participation rate, 2013). In many Western countries, women constitute close
to, or over, 50 of the workforce (Labor force, 2009). The number of women in
leadership positions is highest in Scandinavian countries where women hold 23
percent of the board seats, in Sweden for example (Amble, 2006). In spite of the
growing number of women in organizations, there still are considerable challenges.
An even more disturbing issue is that even when women are in leadership positions,
they have less decision-making power, less authority, and less access to the highly
responsible and challenging assignments than their male counterparts (Smith, 2002).
Another alarming development for women is that despite consistent gains in
achieving equality with men in the workplace, a series of surveys conducted since
1972 indicate that overall women are unhappier than they were previously, and they
get less happy as they age, a finding that is reversed for men (Buckingham, 2009).
The primary explanation provided is that women feel rushed and stressed much
more than before and more than men, and that they feel drained rather than fulfilled.
All the progress that women have made was assumed to make them happier; it has
not.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Causes of Inequality
What obstacles do women face and what explains the challenges they face? Many
factors have been considered and researched (for a review, see Eagly and Carli, 2004).
Table 2.5 presents the various reasons that have been suggested.
Table 2.5 Suggested Reasons for Gender Inequality
Issue Do they contribute to inequality?

Gender differences in style and Not likely
effectiveness There are some gender differences, but if
anything, women appear to have a style that is
recommended in today’s organizations
Challenges in balancing work Likely
life Women still carry a heavy burden of child care
and household work
Women are less committed to Not likely
their career Women leave more often to have a family and
have a nonlinear career, but they come back after
a short break
Women have less education Not likely
and experience Equal or higher percentage of women compared
to men have been getting education in all but
the sciences and they have been in various
positions in organizations for over 50 years
Persistent stereotypes Likely
Continued gender stereotypes held by
organizational leaders and structural barriers
due to traditional practices negatively impacts
women’s success in organizations
Discrimination Likely
Either intentionally or unwittingly, women face
discrimination in the workplace
In spite of the fact that women have a strong presence in organizations, including in
managerial positions, traditional gender views and stereotypes continue to create
obstacles to the their success in organizations. Cinta Putra, CEO of National
Notification Network, believes: “The greatest challenge has been balancing all the
demand of being a woman, a parent, a wife, a sister, a daughter, a friend and a CEO”
(Bisoux, 2008a). Similarly, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, believes that the
disequilibrium in household responsibilities is one of the reasons for women’s lack of
progress (Sandberg, 2013). Although there have been some changes over the past
few years, research indicates that women still continue to carry most of the burden
for child care and household work and that, as a result, mothers are less employed
than other women, whereas fathers work more than other men (Bianchi, 2000;
Kaufman and Uhlenberg, 2000). In spite of this, women are highly committed to both
their education and their work. They are earning 59 percent of the undergraduate
college degrees, 61 percent of the master’s degrees, and 51 percent of MBAs (Eagly
and Carli, 2004; Buckingham, 2009). Research indicates that although more
professional women than men do take a break from work when they start a family
(16 percent for women vs. 2 percent for men), over 90 percent of them try to get back
into the workforce after about two years, further contradicting the idea that women

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
have less commitment to their careers than men (Search for women. 2006; Hewlett, S.
A. 2007). Some women executives have even suggested that motherhood provides
women with skills that can be helpful in taking on organizational leadership roles.
Gerry Laybourne, founder of Oxygen, states, “You learn about customer service from
your 2-year-old (they are more demanding than any customer can be). You also learn
patience, management skills, diversionary tactics, and 5-year planning”
(Grzelakowski, M. 2005).
In regards to style differences, women have been found to be more cooperative,

team-oriented, and more change oriented (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van
Engen, 2003). Management guru Tom Peters believes that the success of the new
economy depends on the collaborative style that women leaders use instead of the
command and control style that male leaders have traditionally used (Reingold,
2003). Addtionally, where there are some differences in management and leadership
styles between men and women, such differences, if anything, should help women
rather than hurt women leaders (see Amanatullah and Morris, 2010; Tannen, 1993;
Su, Rounds, and Armstrong, 2009).
That leaves one major explanation for the challenges women face. Continued
stereotypes and the resulting discrimination prevent them from achieving their
potential. Both men and women continue to hold traditional stereotypes about what
roles women should and can play in organizations. Facebook’s Sandberg has
garnered much attention with her recent book, “Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will
to lead,” where she suggests that women sometimes sabotage their own career
(Sandberg, 2013). She finds that many of the young women she targets for
challenging positions take themselves out of the running because they think having
a family, which is in their future plans, will not allow them to continue working as
hard, so they slow down too early. Women are not alone in this type of stereotypical
thinking. Research suggests that bosses’ perception of potential conflict between
family and work affects their decision to promote women (Hoobler, Wayne, and
Lemmon. 2009). Cases from organizations and academic research consistently show
that women are still subject to negative stereotypes. They are caught in the double
bind of having to fulfill two contradictory roles and expectations: those of being a
woman and those of being a leader (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Gender stereotypes that
equate leadership with being male persist (de Pillis et. al., 2008), and conventional
gender stereotypes help men (Judge and Livingston, 2008). In many traditional
settings, being a leader requires forceful behaviors that are more masculine (e.g.,
being proactive and decisive) than feminine (being kind and not appearing too
competent). Women who are masculine, however, are often not liked and not
considered effective (Powell, Butterfield, and Parent, 2002). Men particularly expect
women to act in ways that are stereotypically feminine and evaluate them poorly
when they show the more masculine characteristics typically associated with
leadership. In some cases, evidence suggests that women do not support other
women in getting leadership positions (Dana and Barisaw, 2006). Further, women
who actively seek leadership and show a desire to direct others are not well accepted
(Carli, 1999). These stereotypes and contradictory expectations limit the range of
behaviors women are “allowed” to use when leading others, further hampering their
ability to be effective. As we discussed in Chapter 1, becoming an effective leader
requires considerable practice and experimentation. If they want to be easily
accepted, women leaders are restricted to a set of feminine behaviors characterized
by interpersonal warmth as their primary, if not only, means of influence (Carli, 2001).
Because of existing stereotypes, women, and in many cases minorities, are not able
to fully practice to perfect their craft. Stereotypes of women and minorities not being
as competent or able to handle challenging leadership situations as well as men still
persist, making blatant or subtle discrimination a continuing problem.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Stereotypes and tradition then lead to intentional and unintentional discriminatory

practices that are difficult to change (Diversity and Inclusion, 2012). Women face a
glass ceiling − invisible barriers and obstacles that prevent them from moving to the
highest levels of organizations (Arfken, Bellar, and Helms, 2004). Some have
suggested that men are fast-tracked to leadership position through a “glass elevator,”
and a recent review suggests the presence of a “glass cliff,” whereby successful
women are appointed to precarious leadership positions with little chance of
success, thereby exposing them to yet another form of discrimination (Maune, 1999;
Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Sexual harassment, defined as unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment, is considered workplace
discrimination. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), sexual harassment claims were by far the largest portion of sex discrimination
claims in 2012 (EEOC Press release, 2013). Other more subtle forms of discrimination
include the fact that women and minorities are often not mentored by the right
people and at the right time, a factor that is critical to success in any organization.
Men are also made team leaders more often than women are (46 vs. 34 percent), they
get more budgetary authority (44 vs. 31 percent), and they have increased
responsibilities faster (89 vs. 83 percent; Search for women, 2009). Furthermore,
women and minorities are often not exposed to the type of positions or experiences
that are essential to achieving high-level leadership. For example, women and
minorities may not be encouraged to take on international assignments or kept in
staff rather than line positions and therefore may lack essential operational
experience. Finally, subtle social and organizational culture factors, such as going to
lunch with the “right” group, playing sports, being members of certain clubs, and
exclusion from informal socializing and the “good old boys” network, can contribute
to the lack of proportional representation of women and minorities in leadership
ranks.
LEADING CHANGE
Deloitte Supports All Its Employees
Deloitte, one of the Big Four accounting firms with global reach, has 4,500
partners and other top executives. While the large majority is still white, the
company is getting considerable recognition for its diversity and inclusion
initiatives. The focus on diversity starts at the top. CEO Barry Salzberg believes
that “ . . . an organization that is diverse is stronger. It can draw on countless
skills. It can innovate better. It can reach a greater number of markets. It can
team more effectively” (Diversity and Inclusion, 2012: 16). He is focused on
making his company a more diverse place and on opening doors for the talent
that Deloitte needs to recruit and retain to succeed. One of the steps the
company has taken is to recruit from community colleges rather than only from
top-notch universities, a practice that is typical for large global companies.
Salzberg states: “Targeting these schools offers us a unique opportunity to reach
another distinct population of diverse top talent” (Crockett, 2009). In addition,
Deloitte has implemented an innovative program called Mass Career
Customization, which provides every employee, not just women and minorities,
the opportunity to develop their own unique path. The program grew out of a
women’s initiative within the company but now applies to all employees. “Mass
career customization provides a framework in which every employee, in
conjunction with his or her manager, can tailor his or her respective career path
within Deloitte over time” (Deloitte, 2010). The program allows employees to
create a better fit between their life and career and provides multiple paths to
the top of the organization, thereby addressing one of the primary challenges
that women face in balancing work and life.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Deloitte’s efforts have not gone unnoticed. The company was named by
Business Week as the number one company for starting a career (Gerdes and
Lavelle, 2009) and by a diversity report from Forbes (Diversity and Inclusion,
2012). It also got high marks in the Shriver Report, which describes the status of
women in the United States, as a model employer (Shriver Report, 2009). The
report gives Deloitte high marks for being “an excellent example of an employer
that has taken an aggressive leadership position in protean career approaches,
providing career-life integration programs that allow both the organization and
its workforce − women and men − to reach their goals” (Deloitte − Shriver
Report, 2009). Cathy Benko, vice chairman and chief talent officer at Deloitte,
believes that “through our own journey to retain and advance women, we know
that what is good for women is good for all our people” (Model employer, 2009).
Sources: Crockett, R. O. 2009. “Deloitte’s diversity push,” Business Week, October

2,http://www.business
week.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca2009102_173180.htm (accessed
January 18, 2010); Deloitte, 2010.
http://careers.deloitte.com/united-states/students/culture_benefits.aspx?CountryContentID=13709
(accessed January 18, 2010); Deloitte − Shriver Report. 2009. Deloitte
recognized for its strategies to adapt to the evolving workforce,
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Press-Releases/pressrelease/5e6c7475aa455210VgnVCM2
(accessed January 18, 2010).
Diversity and Inclusion: Unlocking global potential. 2012. Forbes Insight, January.
http://www.forbes.com/forbesinsights/diversity_2012_pdf_download/
(accessed June 24, 2013); Gerdes, L. and L. Lavelle. 2009. “Best place to launch a
career,” Business Week.
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/career_launch_2009/
(accessed January 18, 2010); Model employer. 2009.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/About/Womens-Initiative/article/c7aa98bbcf084210VgnVCM100
(accessed January 18, 2010). Shriver Report: A woman’s nation changes
everything. 2009. http://awom ansnation.com (accessed January 18, 2010).
THE Leadership Question − Revisited

The GLOBE research tells us that while not all cultures have the same ideals of
leadership, there are some universal factors. Diversity research also points to
differences in what different groups and individual may need and expect from
their leader. However, the one factor that stands out regardless of national or
group culture is integrity. To be effective, leaders, no matter where they are and
who their followers are, must demonstrate integrity, honesty, and
trustworthiness.
More often than not, obstacles that women and minority face are not immediately
apparent, are often not illegal, and are unwritten and unofficial policy, which is one
reason why the term glass is used to describe such obstacles − they are invisible.
They are part of the organizational culture and are therefore difficult to identify and
even more difficult to change. Although there are some differences, all members of
nondominant groups face similar challenges. Changes in how individual leaders
think and how organizations manage their employees are essential to creating a
multicultural and diverse organization. We consider individual and organizational
aspects of becoming a more diverse organization next.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
DEVELOPING A CULTURAL MINDSET

From an organizational point of view, and aside from the fairness and social justice
perspective, developing talented leaders, regardless of their culture, race, gender, or
any other non-performance-related factor, is essential. The key to success in
intercultural contact and interaction is cultivating a cultural mindset which is a way of
thinking and an outlook where culture is taken into consideration in deliberations,
decisions, and behaviors. For many years, organizations have emphasized the
concept of cultural and linguistic competence, which is a set of behaviors, attitudes,
and policies that are integrated to help deal with cross-cultural situations (Cross et al.,
1989). The Georgetown National Center for Cultural Competence suggests that it
includes awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Georgetown National Center,
2013). This competence is essential for today’s leaders. However, a cultural mindset is
the starting point; it includes and goes beyond skills and competence. It focuses on a
way of thinking.
In order for organizations to truly become diverse and multicultural, leaders must
think, not simply act, about culture. Action without cognition is not likely to last and
cognition without action will not be effective. While it is close to impossible for
anyone to acquire in-depth knowledge about all the cultures he or she might
encounter, or learn all the necessary behaviors, it is possible to have a cultural
mindset that allows one to understand cultural differences and their impact on
behavior, and to take that knowledge into consideration when interacting with or
leading others. That cultural mindset then allows for the development of appropriate
skills and competencies.
Characteristics of a Cultural Mindset

A cultural mindset is a way of thinking that allows the individual to be aware of and
open to culture and how it impacts his own and others’ thinking and behaviors. It
involves how one thinks, and how one behaves, as well as specific skills. It starts at
the individual level and expand throughout an organization.
Figure 2.5 summarizes some of these key cognitions, behaviors, and skills. Cultural
mindfulness starts with awareness of your own culture and how it influences how
you perceive the world and what you do. Awareness of the role of culture is essential
because culture is stable and hard to change and because some of the assumptions
are not fully conscious. In addition to self-awareness, a cultural mindset requires
knowing how culture may impact others. It further involves a degree of curiosity and
inquisitiveness about how and why other people do what they do and appreciation
and respect for differences. A culturally mindful person knows that the visible parts of
culture are only a small part and seeks to uncover the hidden parts. He or she looks
for cultural indicators, signs, and symbols that make people unique and values the
diversity and potential strength culture can bring to interpersonal or organizational
settings. Another component of a cultural mindset is curiosity about and knowledge
of others’ cultures. It includes the willingness to share your culture and learn from
those who are different. A culturally mindful leader sees himself or herself as part of
the world and uses the knowledge he or she acquires to improve his or her decisions
and effectiveness. A final and key aspect of cognition is thinking about cultural issues
when evaluating and addressing problems and looking at the world through
multiple cultural lenses.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Figure 2.5 The Cultural Mindset
While a cultural mindset is first a way of thinking, how we think influences what we
do, so it also becomes a way of acting. Behavior starts with self-presentation and
using appropriate verbal and nonverbal messages and cues, such as level of
formality, directness, or focus on relationships. For example, when a team with
members from different cultures is formed, one of the issues that the culturally
mindful manager includes in team training is knowledge of cultural factors and how
to address cultural conflicts. These behaviors can result from developing various skills
in managing interpersonal relations, communication, and other factors that can help
intercultural interaction.
Although it is close to impossible for anyone to acquire in-depth knowledge about all
the cultures he or she might encounter, it is possible to have a cultural mindset that
allows one to understand cultural differences and their impact on behavior and to
take that knowledge into consideration when interacting with and leading others.
Such a cultural mindset engenders an awareness of and openness to culture and how
it affects our own and others’ thinking and behavior. A cultural mindset allows for a
multicultural approach, which aims at inclusiveness, social justice, affirmation, mutual
respect, and harmony in a pluralistic world (Fowers and Davidov, 2006). Rather than
being viewed as an issue of quotas and percentages, diversity and multiculturalism
refer to building a culture of openness and inclusiveness.
The Multicultural Organization

The fundamental solution to addressing cultural challenges is to make organizational
climates hospitable to diverse groups with diverse needs (Solomon, 2010; Valerio,
2009). One of the key challenges that leaders face is how to keep people engaged.
Having an organization that addresses the needs of individuals, which includes
taking culture into account, is essential. The Gallup Survey, a regularly conducted
survey about the workplace, finds that “the best managers recognize and understand
the fundamental differences among their team members and think about the
implications for the workplace. These managers are energized by the potential these
diverse individuals bring to the table” (Gallup − State of the American Workplace,
2013). Gallup finds generational and gender differences in satisfaction and
engagement and squarely puts the responsibility for motivating and engaging a

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
diverse workforce on leaders. It also finds that the benefits of building a multicultural
organization with a cultural mindset go beyond women and other minority groups;
they extend to all employees. One of their surveys shows that organizations where
diversity is valued have the most satisfied employees and better retention (Wilson,
2006).
Organizational leaders play a critical role in encouraging a cultural mindset in

organizations. Leaders demonstrate through their words and actions the value of
maintaining a multicultural organization where discrimination is not tolerated and
where cultural differences are fully considered as part of all decision making (Figure
2.6). The Gallup survey’s linking diversity to satisfaction further indicates that
organizational leaders’ commitment to diversity is linked to overall employee
satisfaction (Wilson, 2006).
Figure 2.6 Organizational Factors in Becoming a Multicultural Organization
The case of Deloitte offers one example of building a multicultural organization.

Another is Sodexo, the global, $20 billion food service and facility management
company. Through a strong commitment from the top leadership, a managerial
reward system based partially on achieving diversity objectives, extensive diversity
training and mentoring, numerous diversity-focused partnerships and relationships
including cooperation with historically black colleges and universities, work life
programs, and sponsorship of diversity-focused groups and events, Sodexo keeps
diversity in the forefront of its activities. A high-touch culture with an orientation
toward action is responsible for the implementation of various diversity initiatives,
says Betsy Silva Hernandez, senior director for corporate diversity and inclusion. A
diversity leadership council, in place since 2002, and a committee of operation
leaders are tasked with implementation and oversight of various policies through
managers and employee groups (Inside diversity structure at Sodexo, 2013). Close to
90 percent of Sodexo managers participate in various employee resource groups that
are instrumental in implementing diversity initiatives (Inside diversity structure,
2013). The company president and CEO, George Chavel, says: “Our diversity expertise
helps us be more agile and responsive to customers and differentiates us from our
competitors, and therefore directly contributes to our long-term business success”
(Sodexo ranked number one company for diversity by DiversityInc., 2010). Rohini
Anand, Sodexo’s chief diversity officer, states: “Sodexo considers diversity and
inclusion a business imperative as well as a social and ethical responsibility grounded
in core values of team spirit, service spirit, and spirit of progress” (Reed, 2013).
Sodexo’s success in diversity is all the more impressive because, just a few years ago

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
in 2006, the company settled a $80 million discrimination class action lawsuit (Reed,
2013).
The examples of Sodexo and Deloitte demonstrate the importance of leaders. The
leader not only is a powerful decision maker but also exercises considerable
influence through formal and informal communication, recruiting, role modeling,
and the setting of various organizational policies. The message the leader sends
through words and actions about the importance and role of culture, diversity, and
multiculturalism in an organization is one of the most important factors in diversity
(for a discussion on the influence process used by top leaders, see Chapter 7).
Changing the culture of an organization to address discriminatory practices,
behaviors, and symbols is another powerful tool. It is also one of the most difficult
and lengthy processes any organization can undertake. However, without a cultural
change toward addressing informal discriminatory practices and attitudes, other
improvements are not likely to be as effective.
The presence of diverse role models throughout an organization is another part of

the solution. By having diverse people in leadership positions and recruiting a diverse
group of employees, an organization “walks the talk” and can demonstrate its
commitment to diversity. Training and education can help people become aware of
their biases, understand their own and others’ cultural point of view, and better
accept differences. For example, when the consulting firm of Bain & Company
transfers its consultants from one part of the world to another, it not only provides
them with information about living in the new country but also arms them with
cultural knowledge specific to the country to allow them to function more effectively
(Holland, 2007). Other companies such as Procter & Gamble (P&G) value and
encourage the development of cultural knowledge in their employees and leaders.
The company’s motto of “everyone valued, everyone included, everyone Performing
at their Peak” is more than words (Diversity and Inclusion, 2012). Linda
Clement-Holmes, P&G’s diversity officer and senior vice president for business
services, says: “the more the employees can reflect the consumers, the better we do
as a company” (Diversity and Inclusion, 2012: 6).
Toyota U.S.A., like many other successful multicultural organizations, builds the
diversity of its workforce through a well-articulated strategy, a diversity advisory
board, and various policies and actions such as supporting diverse groups,
recruitment, and accountability (Toyota’s Twenty-First Century Diversity Strategy,
2013). Many traditional organizational policies such as those on family leave can
hinder people’s chances of advancement. Similarly, performance evaluation criteria
that may emphasize the stereotypical male and Western characteristics associated
with leaders as the basis for success may undermine the ability of people who have
other diverse characteristics and skills to rise to leadership positions. Finally,
successfully encouraging diversity requires careful measurement and monitoring.
Organizations must have baseline information about the hard facts about the actual
numbers of women and minorities in leadership and about the softer data related to
satisfaction, attitudes, and the less-visible obstacles that may be in place. Keeping
track of changes and holding decision makers accountable, as do Deloitte, Sodexo,
and others, are essential to solidifying any improvement that may take place. For
example, another indicator of Toyota’s commitment to a diverse and inclusive
workforce is its quick action after one of its top executives was accused of sexual
harassment. Not only did the executive leave his position, but the company also
created a task force to enhance training of its executives and put in place better
procedures for responding to allegations and complaints (Wiscombe, 2007).
The importance and key role of a leader who is culturally minded cannot be
overemphasized. Building a diverse and multicultural organization where employees

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
from diverse groups and cultures are welcome is an ethical and moral obligation in
the global environment, and it is a sound business practice.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
Your company is growing fast and you need to hire many new employees and
managers quickly. Several of your managers suggest that instead of going
through a lengthy posting of jobs, you should simply encourage all your
managers to personally recruit people they know and trust. Others say that your
current management lacks diversity and is not likely to bring in a diverse pool of
applicants. What do you do?
Summary and Conclusions

Culture is one of the factors that influence how people think and behave. It also
affects whom we consider to be an effective leader and what we expect of our
leaders. Several models have been proposed to increase our understanding of
culture. Hall’s cultural context focuses on the communication context. People from
high-context cultures rely on the environment, nonverbal cues, situational factors,
and subtle signals to communicate with others. Those from low-context cultures
focus on specific written or oral messages. Hofstede’s cultural values suggest that
culture can be understood using the five dimensions of power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and time orientation. Additionally, whether a
culture is tight, with many rules and regulations, or loose, with fewer prescriptions for
behavior, further affects how people behave. Trompenaars further refines our
understanding of culture by considering nine dimensions and providing models for
cross-cultural organizational cultures. The most recent and most comprehensive
model for culture, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness
(GLOBE), suggests that culture impacts, but does not predict, leadership behavior
through culturally endorsed theory of leadership (CLT), and that leaders who behave
according to their cultures’ expectations tend to be most effective.
In addition to national culture, group culture, particularly as it relates to gender, plays

a role in the leadership of organizations. Although women have active roles in
organizations in the West and many other parts of the world, clearly they do not have
access to the same power and leadership roles as men do. While gender inequality
has many causes, consistent stereotypes and discrimination continues to prevent
women from full progress in organizations. The development of a cultural mindset,
whereby culture is at the forefront of leader’s cognitions and behaviors, is the first
step toward the development of multicultural organizations. Support from
leadership, a supportive culture, appropriate policies, and accountability are among
the factors that help build a diverse and multicultural organization.
Nahavandi. Original materials from The Art and Science of Leadership ©

copyright Pearson 2015. All rights reserved.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
ESSENTIAL READING
Now do the second reading, bearing in mind the points we have emphasised in the
introductory video to this topic and in the mini lecture. Remember that all the
essential reading for this programme is provided for you. Click ‘next’ to go to the next
page and start reading.
After this there will be a short quiz based on both readings to help you test how
much information you have retained, then a series of more thought-provoking
self-assessment exercises to allow you to stretch yourself and develop your ideas
further.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
CHAPTER 14: CROSS-CULTURAL LEADERSHIP AND

DIVERSITY
G.A. Yukl, Leadership in organizations (Pearson, 2013; 8th edition)

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
• Understand why cross-cultural research on leadership is important.
• Understand the difficulties of studying cross-cultural leadership.
• Understand how cultural values are related to leader behavior.
• Understand how gender issues have been studied and the limitations of
this research.
• Understand the findings in research on gender differences in leadership.
• Understand how to manage diversity and provide equal opportunities.
Most of the research on leadership during the past half century was conducted in the
United States, Canada, and Western Europe. However, during the past decade
interest in studying leadership in non-Western cultures has increased rapidly
(Dickson, Den Hartog, & Michelson, 2003; Dorfman, 2003). A major issue is the extent
to which leadership theories developed and tested in one culture can be generalized
to different cultures. A related question is to identify differences among countries
with regard to beliefs about effective leadership and actual management practices.
Globalization and changing demographic patterns are making it more important for
leaders to understand how to influence and manage people with different values,
beliefs, and expectations. The diversity of people in leadership positions is also
increasing, and there is strong interest in studying whether the ability to provide
effective leadership is related to a person’s gender, age, race, ethnic background,
national origin, religion, sexual preference, or physical appearance (height, weight,
attractiveness). There has been more leadership research on cross-cultural aspects
and gender differences than on other types of diversity (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). This
chapter will examine three distinct but interrelated subjects: (1) cross-cultural
research in leadership, (2) gender differences in leadership, and (3) management of
diversity.
Introduction to Cross-cultural Leadership

Research on cross-cultural leadership and leadership in global companies has been
increasing rapidly during the last 10 years (Bass, 2008; Smith, Peterson, & Thomas,
2008). This section of the chapter explains why the research is important and
describes several different types of cross-cultural research on leadership. The
different ways culture can influence leaders and followers are explained, and
examples of cross-cultural studies on leadership are described, including the
multinational GLOBE project.
Importance of Cross-cultural Research

Cross-cultural research on leadership is important for several reasons (Ayman &
Korabik, 2010; Connerley & Pedersen, 2005; Dorfman, 1996; House, Wright, & Aditya,

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
1997). Increasing globalization of organizations makes it more important to learn

about effective leadership in different cultures. Leaders are increasingly confronted
with the need to influence people from other cultures, and successful influence
requires a good understanding of these cultures. Leaders must also be able to
understand how people from different cultures view them and interpret their actions.
To understand these issues, it is essential to determine if a leadership theory is valid
in cultures that differ from the one in which it was developed. Some aspects of a
leadership theory may be relevant for all cultures, but other aspects may apply only
to a particular type of culture.
Cross-cultural research also requires researchers to consider a broader than usual

range of variables and processes, which can provide new insights and improve
leadership theories. Research to develop or validate taxonomies of leadership
behavior in different cultures can reveal new aspects of behavior that are relevant for
effective leadership. Examination of cross-cultural differences may cause researchers
to pay more attention to possible effects of situational variables not usually included
in most leadership theories (e.g., religion, language, history, laws, political systems,
ethnic subcultures). Finally, cross-cultural research poses some unique
methodological challenges that may result in improved procedures for data
collection and analysis.
Types of Cross-cultural Studies

As in the case of the leadership research conducted within a single culture, much of
the cross-cultural research involves leader behavior, skills, and traits. The growing
body of crosscultural research has examined different types of research questions
(Brett et al., 1997). The most common approach has been to explain cross-cultural
differences in leadership in terms of differences in cultural values. The cross-cultural
research on leadership was strongly influenced by the early study of cultural values
by Hofstede (1980, 1993), but since then several different sets of cultural values have
been proposed (e.g., House et al., 1997; Javidan et al., 2006; Schwartz, 1992;
Trompenaars, 1993). Some cross-cultural studies examine how beliefs about effective
leadership behavior, skills, and traits are similar or different from one country to
another. Other studies examine cross-cultural differences in the actual pattern of
leadership behavior, or the effects on outcomes such as subordinate satisfaction,
motivation, and performance. Only a small number of studies have examined how
cultural values and leadership practices are both changing over time.
Cultural Influences on Leadership Behavior

Cultural values and traditions can influence the attitudes and behavior of managers
in a number of different ways (Adler, 1997; Fu & Yukl, 2000; House et al., 1997; Lord &
Maher, 1991). The values are likely to be internalized by managers who grow up in a
particular culture, and these values will influence their attitudes and behavior in ways
that may not be conscious. In addition, cultural values are reflected in social norms
about the way people relate to each other. Cultural norms specify acceptable forms
of leadership behavior and may be formalized as social laws limiting the use of
power. Most managers will conform to social norms about acceptable behavior, even
if they have not internalized the norms. One reason is that deviation from social
norms may result in diminished respect and increased social pressure from other
members of the organization. Another reason for conformity with social norms is that
the use of socially unacceptable forms of behavior is likely to undermine a leader’s
effectiveness.
Leadership behavior is influenced by other situational variables besides national

culture (Bass, 1990; House et al., 1997, 2004). Some examples include the type of

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
organization (e.g., profit vs. nonprofit, public corporation vs. private ownership), the
type of industry (e.g., retailing, financial services, manufacturing,
telecommunications), and characteristics of the managerial position (e.g., level and
function of the manager, position power, and authority). Strong values in the
organizational culture may or may not be consistent with the dominant cultural
values, especially if an organization is a subsidiary of a foreign-owned company. The
different determinants of leader behavior are not always congruent with each other.
Some situational variables may have parallel effects across national cultures, but
other situational variables may interact with national culture in complex ways.
Even when some types of leadership behaviors are not clearly supported by the
prevailing cultural values and traditions in a country, it does not necessarily mean
that these behaviors are ineffective. Managers who have little experience with a
particular type of leadership behavior may not understand how effective it could be
(House et al., 1997). When people learn that new practices are highly effective, they
are likely to be widely imitated.
The values and traditions in a national culture can change over time, just as they do
in an organizational culture. Cultural values are influenced by many types of changes
(e.g., economic, political, social, technological). Countries in which socialism is being
replaced by capitalism and emphasis on entrepreneurship are likely to see a shift
toward stronger individualism and performance orientation values. Countries in which
an autocratic political system is replaced by a democratic system are likely to become
more accepting of participative leadership and empowerment in organizations.
Countries in which strong gender differentiation is gradually replaced by gender
equality can be expected to become more accepting of leadership practices that
reflect traditional feminine attributes (e.g., nurturing, developing, building
cooperative relationships). Cultural values and beliefs about the determinants of
effective leadership are likely to change in consistent ways.
Cross-cultural Research on Behavior Differences

Much of the cross-cultural research examines differences among countries with
regard to typical patterns of leadership behavior. Scores on behavior questionnaires
are analyzed to determine whether a type of behavior is used more in one culture or
country than another. For example, Dorfman et al. (1997) found that American
managers used more participative leadership than managers in Mexico or Korea.
However, a quantitative comparison of scale means from behavior description
questionnaires is complicated by methodological problems such as confounding and
lack of equivalence (Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991). For example, lower scores may be
obtained in one country because the behavior items have a different meaning there,
or because respondents in that culture avoid giving very high scores on a
questionnaire.
A smaller number of cross-cultural studies attempt to identify qualitative differences

in the way a specific type of behavior is enacted in each country. For example, one
study found that positive reward behavior was important for leadership effectiveness
in different cultures, but the types of behavior rewarded and the way rewards were
used differed across cultures (Podsakoff, Dorfman, Howell, & Todor, 1986). Another
study found differences in the way managers communicated directions and feedback
to subordinates (Smith et al., 1989). American managers were more likely to use a
face-to-face meeting to provide directions to subordinates and to give negative
feedback (criticism), whereas Japanese managers were more likely to use written
memos for directions and to channel negative feedback through peers.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Cross-cultural Research on the Effects of Leader Behavior

Cross-cultural studies also examine differences in the relationship of leadership
behavior to outcomes such as subordinate satisfaction and performance. For
example, one study found that supportive behavior was significantly related to
subordinate satisfaction and leadership effectiveness in the United States but not in
Jordan or Saudi Arabia (Scandura, Von Glinow, & Lowe, 1999). Another study found
that directive leadership was related to organizational commitment in Mexico and
Taiwan, but not in the United States, South Korea, or Japan (Dorfman et al., 1997).
Leader contingent reward was related to subordinate organizational commitment in
the United States, Mexico, and Japan, but not in Korea or Taiwan. Participative
leadership was related to subordinate performance in the United States but not in
Mexico or South Korea.
A study by Schaubroeck, Lam, and Cha (2007) examined leadership by bank branch
managers in the United States and Hong Kong. They found that the transformational
leadership of the branch manager (rated by subordinates) was related to branch
performance (rated by higher management) in both countries. However, the effect of
transformational leadership on branch performance was enhanced by power distance
and collectivism values, which were higher in Hong Kong than in the United States.
A study by Fu and Yukl (2000) conducted a cross-cultural study on managers of a

multinational company with similar manufacturing facilities in the United States and
China. The study used scenarios to assess manager beliefs about the effectiveness of
different tactics for influencing people in their organizations. The results indicated
that confrontational tactics such as rational persuasion and exchange were viewed
more favorably by American managers than by Chinese managers, although rational
persuasion was still rated one of the most effective tactics in both countries. The
Chinese managers had a stronger preference than American managers for indirect
tactics such as giving gifts and favors prior to a request, and getting assistance from a
third party. Cross-cultural differences were also found in the ways some types of
tactic were commonly used. For example, when attempting to influence a peer, the
American managers seldom enlisted help from others except after encountering
initial resistance to a direct request. Chinese managers were more likely to ask a
mutual friend to find out (in a subtle way) how a peer was likely to respond before
making a direct request. This informal approach would avoid embarrassment (“losing
face”) for the managers and for the peer if the request was refused.
The GLOBE Project

The GLOBE project is a cross-cultural study of leadership in 60 different countries
representing all major regions of the world (House et al., 2004; Javidan et al., 2006;
Waldman, Sully de Luque, Washburn, & House, 2006). The acronym GLOBE means
“Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness.” The project has
involved more than 150 researchers in different countries working together in a
coordinated, long-term effort.
The researchers hoped to develop an empirically based theory that describes the
relationships between national culture, organizational processes, and leadership. The
GLOBE project also examined how leadership and cultural values are affected by
other situational variables, including type of industry, economic development, type
of government, dominant religions, and type of climate conditions for a country.
Multiple methods of data collection were used, including survey questionnaires,
interviews, media analysis, archival records, and unobtrusive measures. The strategy
for sampling and analysis was designed to control for the influence of industry,
management level, and organizational culture. The research included an in-depth,
qualitative description of each culture as well as analyses of quantitative variables.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
One important research question is the extent to which effective leadership is similar
or different across cultures, and the reasons for these differences. To compare beliefs
about the importance of various traits and skills for effective leadership, managers in
different countries were asked to provide importance ratings on a questionnaire. The
amount of variance in mean ratings across countries was examined, and leader
attributes that were rated nearly the same in each country were identified. The
results for these uniformly effective attributes are shown in Table 14.1. The research
also found several leader attributes that were widely rated as ineffective and they
were usually the opposites of the positive ones (e.g., ruthless, uncooperative,
dictatorial, self-centered, self-defensive). Other attributes were found to vary widely
in relevance across cultures, and these attributes are also shown in Table 14.1.
Table 14.1 Cultural Beliefs about Ideal Leader Attributes
Rated Effective in Most Cultures Ratings Varied Across Cultures

Visionary Ambitious
Decisive Cautious
Dynamic Compassionate
Dependable Domineering
Encouraging and positive Formal
Excellence-oriented Humble (self-effacing)
Honest and trustworthy Independent
Skilled administrator Risk taker
Team integrator Self-sacrificing
Based on Dorfman, Hanges, and Brodbeck (2004).
Another important research objective is to explain how leadership beliefs and

behavior are influenced by cultural values. The researchers identified nine value
dimensions, including some cultural values not identified in the earlier research by
Hofstede. A unique feature of the GLOBE research was to measure not only the
current cultural values, but also ideal cultural values. This distinction made it possible
to determine if people were dissatisfied with the current values and wanted to see a
change in the future. The differences among countries for ideal values were much
smaller than for actual values, and it is still not clear how to interpret the results. The
next section of the chapter describes several of the value dimensions and how they
are likely to be related to leadership beliefs, behavior, and development.
Cultural Value Dimensions and Leadership

This section summarizes major findings in the research on how current cultural
values are related to leadership beliefs, leadership behavior, and leadership
development practices. The six value dimensions to be discussed include: (1) power
distance, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) individualism versus collectivism, (4) gender
egalitarianism, (5) performance orientation, and (6) humane orientation.
Power Distance
Power distance involves the acceptance of an unequal distribution of power and
status in organizations and institutions. In high power distance cultures, people

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
expect the leaders to have greater authority and are more likely to comply with rules
and directives without questioning or challenging them (Dickson et al., 2003).
Subordinates are less willing to challenge bosses or express disagreement with them
(Adsit, London, Crom, & Jones, 1997). More formal policies and rules are used, and
managers consult less often with subordinates when making decisions (Smith et al.,
2002).
Participative leadership is viewed as a more favorable leadership attribute in low

power distance cultures such as Western Europe, New Zealand, and the United States
than in high power distance countries such as Russia, China, Taiwan, Mexico, and
Venezuela (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). In low power distance countries,
transformational (supportive and inspirational) leadership is more likely to be
combined with a participative style of decision making (Den Hartog et al., 1999),
whereas in high power distance countries, it is likely to be combined with a directive,
autocratic style of decision making. In developing countries with a high power
distance culture, people often prefer a “paternalistic” style that combines autocratic
decisions with supportive behavior (Dickson et al., 2003; Dorfman et al., 1997).
Uncertainty Avoidance
In cultures with high avoidance of uncertainty, there is more fear of the unknown,
and people desire more security, stability, and order. Social norms, tradition, detailed
agreements, and certified expertise are more valued, because they offer a way to
avoid uncertainty and disorder (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dickson et al., 2003).
Examples of countries with high uncertainty avoidance include France, Spain,
Germany, Switzerland, Russia, and India. Some countries with a lower concern about
avoiding uncertainty include the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark,
and Sweden.
When there is high uncertainty avoidance, valued qualities for managers include
being reliable, orderly, and cautious, rather than flexible, innovative, and risk taking.
Managers use more detailed planning, formal rules and standard procedures, and
monitoring of activities, and there is less delegation (Offermann & Hellmann, 1997).
There is more centralized control over decisions involving change or innovation. For
example, one study found that managers in the United Kingdom expected more
innovation and initiative from subordinates, whereas managers in Germany expected
more reliability and punctuality (Stewart et al., 1994). The study also found that
management development in Germany emphasized acquisition of specialized
knowledge and experience in a functional area, whereas in the United Kingdom,
there was more emphasis on general skills attained from a variety of job experiences.
Individualism (vs. Collectivism)

Individualism is the extent to which the needs and autonomy of individuals are more
important than the collective needs of groups, organizations, or society. In an
individualistic culture, individual rights are more important than social
responsibilities, and people are expected to take care of themselves (Dickson et al.,
2003; Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishi, & Bechtold, 2004; Hofstede, 1980). Examples of
countries with strong values for individualism include the United States, Australia,
England, and the Netherlands.
The implications of collectivistic values depend in part on whether they are more
important for in-groups or the larger society, but most of the cross-cultural research
has emphasized in-group collectivism. The in-groups may be based on family ties,
religious or ethnic background, membership in a political party, or a stable,
collaborative business relationship. In a collectivistic culture, membership in cohesive
in-groups is an important aspect of a person’s self-identity, and loyalty to the group is

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
an important value. People are less likely to change jobs, and members are more
likely to volunteer their time to do extra work and “organizational citizenship
behaviors” (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). In turn, the groups are
expected to take care of their members. Examples of countries with strong
collectivistic values include China, Argentina, Mexico, and Sweden.
Because people are more motivated to satisfy their self-interests and personal goals
in an individualistic culture, it is more difficult for leaders to inspire strong
commitment to team or organizational objectives (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Triandis et al.,
1993). The preference for rewards based on individual achievements and
performance also makes it more difficult for leaders to use team-based rewards and
recognition (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000). The emphasis on individual rights and
autonomy makes it more difficult to create a strong culture of shared values for social
responsibility, cooperation, and ethical behavior. Because of the transitory nature of
careers, selection is likely to be more important than training for ensuring that
people have adequate skills.
Gender Egalitarianism
Gender egalitarianism is the extent to which men and women receive equal
treatment, and both masculine and feminine attributes are considered important
and desirable. In cultures with high gender egalitarianism, there is less differentiation
of sex roles and most jobs are not segregated by gender. Women have more equal
opportunity to be selected for important leadership positions, although access is still
greater for public sector positions than in business corporations. In the absence of
strongly differentiated gender-role expectations, men and women leaders are less
limited in their behavior, and there is less bias in how their behavior is evaluated by
subordinates and by bosses. Examples of countries with strong gender egalitarian
values include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Countries with a low
level of gender egalitarianism include Japan, Italy, Mexico, and Switzerland.
Cultural values for gender egalitarianism have implications for the selection and
evaluation of leaders and for the types of leadership behavior considered desirable
and socially acceptable (Dickson et al., 2003; Emrich, Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2005).
In cultures with strong “masculine” values for toughness and assertiveness,
“feminine” attributes such as compassion, empathy, and intuition are not viewed as
important for effective leadership (Den Hartog, 2004; Den Hartog et al., 1999).
Participative leadership, supportive leadership, and relations-oriented aspects of
transformational leadership are viewed less favorably in cultures with low gender
egalitarianism. Leaders are more likely to use direct, confrontational forms of
interpersonal influence rather than indirect, subtle forms of influence (e.g., Fu & Yukl,
2000; Holtgraves, 1997). Leaders whose actions display humility, compassion, or
conciliation are more likely to be viewed as weak and ineffective in a “masculine”
culture.
Performance Orientation
The extent to which high performance and individual achievement are valued is
called performance orientation (Javidan, 2004). Related values and attributes include
hard work, responsibility, competitiveness, persistence, initiative, pragmatism, and
acquisition of new skills. In societies with strong performance orientation values,
results are emphasized more than people. What you do is more important than who
you are (e.g., gender, family or ethnic background), and individual achievements can
be an important source of status and self-esteem. Accomplishing a task effectively
can take priority over individual needs or family loyalty.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
In a high performance orientation culture, there is more emphasis on leader

behaviors that are relevant for improving performance and efficiency. Examples
include setting challenging goals or standards, developing action plans with
schedules and deadlines, expressing confidence that subordinates can improve
performance, developing job-relevant skills in subordinates, encouraging initiative,
and providing praise and rewards for achievements. In a high performance
orientation culture, the selection of members for a team with an important task is
likely to be based on talent, not on friendship or family relations.
A strong concern for task performance is widely believed to be a requirement for

effective leadership in any country. Economic development is aided by a strong
performance orientation, but concern for improving performance may be stronger in
rapidly developing countries than in a country where widespread prosperity already
exists (Javidan, 2004). Cultural values may have less influence on task-oriented
behavior than core organizational values and a leader’s individual needs and
personality traits (e.g., achievement motivation, internal locus of control). Taken
together, these factors help explain the lack of consistent results in cross-cultural
studies on the effects of performance orientation values.
Humane Orientation
Humane orientation means a strong concern for the welfare of other people and the
willingness to sacrifice one’s own self-interest to help others. Key values include
altruism, benevolence, kindness, compassion, love, and generosity. These values tend
to be associated with stronger needs for affiliation and belongingness than for
pleasure, achievement, or power. Altruism and kindness are not limited to a person’s
family or ethnic/religious in-group, but instead include a humanitarian concern for
everyone. Societies with a strong humane orientation encourage and reward
individuals for being friendly, caring, generous, and kind to others (Kabasakal &
Bodur, 2004). Such societies are likely to invest more resources in educating and
training people for careers and in providing health care and social services to people.
The humane values for an individual are influenced by family experiences, parenting,
and religious teaching as well as by cultural norms.
Humane orientation values encourage supportive leadership behaviors such as

being considerate of a subordinate’s needs and feelings, showing sympathy when a
subordinate is upset, providing mentoring and coaching when appropriate, offering
to provide assistance when needed to deal with a personal problem, and acting
friendly and accepting. A leader with strong humane orientation values is likely to be
more tolerant, patient, and helpful with subordinates who make mistakes or are
having difficulty learning a new task. Humane orientation values are also associated
with participative leadership, servant leadership, and team-building behaviors
(encouraging cooperation and mutual trust). The key values are consistent with a
diplomatic, conciliatory style of conflict management that seeks to restore
harmonious relations and satisfy each party’s important needs. The interest in
building friendly, cooperative relationships can extend to people outside of the
leader’s team or unit, such as developing a network of external contacts by
socializing with people and doing favors for them. In some countries, humane
orientation can also take other forms, such as socializing informally with subordinates
and acting paternalistic with regard to the career and social welfare of subordinates
and their families.
Culture Clusters
The cultural value dimensions are moderately intercorrelated, and examining
differences for a single value dimension without controlling for the others makes it

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
difficult to determine their independent effects on leadership beliefs and behavior.

For example, in a country that has high power distance and low uncertainty
tolerance, it is not clear how much each value influences the emphasis on centralized
decisions for a company. For this reason, researchers have grouped countries into
clusters based on regional proximity and similarity in language, ethnic background,
and religion (Dorfman et al., 2004; Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). The GLOBE
researchers grouped 60 countries into 10 clusters, and a discriminant analysis
confirmed that the classification of countries into clusters accurately reflected
differences in the nine cultural values for each country. The nations in each cluster are
shown in Table 14.2.
Table 14.2 GLOBE Culture Clusters
Eastern Europe Anglo Sub-Saharan Africa

Albania Australia Namibia
Georgia Canada Nigeria
Greece Ireland South Africa (black)
Hungary New Zealand Zambia
Kazakhstan South Africa (white) Zimbabwe
Poland United Kingdom
Russia USA
Slovenia
Latin America Nordic Europe Confucian Asia
Argentina Denmark China
Bolivia Finland Hong Kong
Brazil Sweden Japan
Colombia Singapore
Costa Rica South Korea
Ecuador Germanic Europe Taiwan
Austria
El Salvador Germany
Guatemala Netherlands
Switzerland
Mexico
Venezuela
Latin Europe Middle East Southern Asia
France Egypt India
Israel Kuwait Indonesia
Italy Morocco Iran
Portugal Qatar Malaysia
Spain Turkey Philippines

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Switzerland (French) Thailand
Based on Dorfman et al. (2004).

The clusters were compared with regard to leadership beliefs, and differences were
found among clusters for some of the beliefs about effective leadership. For example,
participative leadership is considered more important in the Anglo, Germanic
Europe, and Nordic Europe clusters than in the Eastern Europe, Southern Asia,
Confucian Asia, and Middle East clusters. Showing a strong humane concern for
others is considered more important for effective leadership in the Southern Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa clusters than in the Germanic Europe or Latin Europe clusters.
Future research will look more closely at differences in actual leadership behavior
that correspond to the differences in values and implicit theories about effective
leadership.
Evaluation of Cross-cultural Research

The research on cultural values finds important differences that are relevant for
beliefs about effective leadership and actual behavior of leaders. However,
conceptual and methodological weaknesses are common, and limitations in the
research have been pointed out by several scholars (e.g., Jepson, 2009; Kirkman,
Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Smith, 2006). This section of the chapter summarizes the
limitations and suggests some promising research questions for the future.
The conceptual frameworks used in cross-cultural research on leadership affect
interpretation of results. Different sets of cultural value dimensions have been
proposed by scholars, and disagreements about desirable features have not been
resolved. All of the current taxonomies have limitations, and researchers continue to
seek a more comprehensive and useful way to describe cultural dimensions. The
reliance on broadly defined leadership behaviors in many studies makes it more
difficult to get a clear picture of cross-cultural differences in behavior. To understand
the joint influence of cultural and organizational values on leadership behavior, it is
essential to measure specific aspects of this behavior in addition to broad categories
such as participative leadership, supportive leadership, and transformational
leadership. The selection of variables and interpretation of results can be biased by
cultural differences among researchers in their underlying values and assumptions
about human nature and organizational processes (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). To
minimize this type of problem it is advisable to have a research team with qualified
representatives from the different cultures included in the study.
Much of the early research used convenience samples from only a few countries,
rather than representative samples from many different countries with controls for
type of organization and type of respondent. The assumption that cultural values
identified for a nation apply to all types of organizations in that country overlooks the
importance of organizational culture, regional differences, and individual differences.
Levels of analysis problems are caused by using an overall culture score for values to
explain the behavior and performance of individuals. When cross-cultural studies
have large samples, it is easy to find significant differences, and researchers have not
been consistent about reporting whether the differences have much practical
significance.
Another limitation in many cross-cultural studies is too much reliance on survey
questionnaires. The serious biases in survey measures of leadership were explained in
earlier chapters, and additional problems are common when fixed-response
questionnaires are used in cross-cultural research. It can be difficult to achieve
equivalence in meaning when questionnaires are translated into another language,
and there are cultural differences in response biases even for scales with equivalent

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
language (Atwater, Wang, Smither, & Fleenor, 2009; Harzing, 2006). An inherent bias
in most survey research on cross-cultural leadership is the assumption that
leadership is only a consequence of culture, when it is also a determinant of culture
and an interpreter of culture. The use of ethnography and a detailed historical
perspective are advocated as more useful approaches for research on the
relationship between leadership and culture (Guthey & Jackson, 2011).
The utility of many cross-cultural studies is limited by their failure to acknowledge

these problems. Even for well-designed studies, the interpretation of results is often
difficult. Many studies fail to include information that could help to explain the
reason for cross-cultural differences in leadership. It is useful to learn that a particular
type of leadership behavior is used more often or has stronger effects in a particular
culture, but it is even better to learn why.
Many research questions need to be examined more closely in the future. Examples
of relevant questions for future cross-cultural research on leadership include the
following:
1. How does actual behavior of leaders differ across cultural value clusters and for
different countries?
2. How are leader values and behaviors jointly influenced by personality (and
developmental experiences), company culture, and national culture?
3. What types of leadership traits, skills, and developmental experiences are most
useful to prepare someone for a leadership assignment in a different culture?
4. How useful is the distinction between actual and ideal cultural values for
understanding implicit theories of leadership and patterns of leadership
behavior?
5. What are the implications for leaders when a global organization’s values are
inconsistent with the social values in some countries where the organization has
facilities?
6. What is necessary for effective leadership in a multi-national team with

members who differ in their cultural values?
7. How fast are cultural values changing in developing countries, and how are the
culture changes relevant for leadership?
8. How much agreement is there across cultures with regard to the essential
requirements for ethical leadership, and what are the points of disagreement?
Gender and Leadership

A topic of great interest among practitioners as well as scholars is the possible
difference between men and women in leadership behavior and effectiveness. A
related topic of great importance is the reason for continued discrimination against
women in leadership selection. This section of the chapter will briefly discuss both
topics and review what has been learned about gender and leadership.
Sex-based Discrimination
Widespread discrimination is clearly evident in the low number of women who hold
important, high-level leadership positions in most types of organizations. The strong
tendency to favor men over women in filling high-level leadership positions has been
referred to as the “glass ceiling.” Only a small number of nations have a female head of
state (e.g., prime minister, president), and the number of women in top executive

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
positions in large business organizations is also very small, although it has been
increasing in recent years (Adler, 1996; Catalyst, 2003; Powell & Graves, 2003; Ragins,
Townsend, & Mattis, 1998). In the complete absence of sex-based discrimination, the
number of women in chief executive positions in business and government should
be close to 50 percent.
Theories of Male Advantage

Throughout the twentieth century, gender-based discrimination was supported by
age-old beliefs that men are more qualified than women for leadership roles (Ayman
& Korabik, 2010). These beliefs involved assumptions about the traits and skills
required for effective leadership in organizations (implicit theories), assumptions
about inherent differences between men and women (gender stereotypes), and
assumptions about appropriate behavior for men and women (role expectations). As
noted earlier, the implicit theories and gender stereotypes are also influenced by
cultural values for gender egalitarianism.
There is no empirical support for the belief that men are more qualified to be leaders,
and laws now exist in the United States to stop sex-based discrimination. The
antidiscrimination laws are based on the premise that men and women are equally
qualified to hold leadership positions. Gender stereotypes have been slowly
changing, but the belief that men are more qualified to be leaders still persists in
segments of the population and it remains strong in countries where it is supported
by cultural values.
Theory of Feminine Advantage

A more recent controversy is fueled by claims that women are more likely than men
to possess the values and skills necessary for effective leadership in modern
organizations (Book, 2000; Carr-Ruffino, 1993; Grant, 1988; Hegelsen, 1990; Rosener,
1990). The difference is a result of childhood experiences, parent−child interactions,
and socialization practices that reflect cultural sex-role stereotypes and beliefs about
gender differences and appropriate occupations for men and women (Cockburn,
1991). These experiences encourage “feminine” values such as kindness, compassion,
nurturing, and sharing. Proponents of the “feminine advantage” theory contend that
women are more concerned with consensus building, inclusiveness, and
interpersonal relations; they are more willing to develop and nurture subordinates
and share power with them. Women are believed to have more empathy, rely more
on intuition, and be more sensitive to feelings and the quality of relationships.
Proponents of the feminine advantage claim that the changing nature of leadership
in organizations has increased the relevance of skills and values that are stronger in
women than in men. However, as with earlier claims that men are more qualified to
be leaders, the claims that women are more qualified appear to be based on weak
assumptions and exaggerated gender stereotypes. Evaluation of assertions about
gender superiority in leadership requires a careful consideration of the findings in the
empirical research.
Explanations for the Glass Ceiling

Biased beliefs about the skills and behaviors necessary for effective leadership are
one reason for sex-based discrimination. For a long time, it was assumed that
effective leaders must be confident, task-oriented, competitive, objective, decisive,
and assertive, all of which were traditionally viewed as masculine attributes (Schein,
1975; Stogdill, 1974). As shown in earlier chapters, effective leadership also requires
strong interpersonal skills, and leadership behaviors traditionally viewed as feminine

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
(e.g., supporting, developing, empowering). These skills and behaviors were always
relevant for effective leadership, but now they are more important than in earlier
times because of changing conditions in work organizations. As popular conceptions
of effective leadership become more accurate and comprehensive, role expectations
for leaders will become less gender biased.
Sex-based discrimination in leadership selection also reflects the influence of popular

stereotypes and role expectations for men and women (Heilman, 2001). For a long
time, women were assumed to be unable or unwilling to use the masculine behaviors
considered essential for effective leadership. Some laboratory studies found that
even when women leaders use masculine behaviors, they are evaluated less
favorably than men who use them (e.g., Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Rojahn &
Willemsen, 1994). However, the effects of gender stereotypes on evaluation of female
managers may be overstated in laboratory studies with students. The experience of
working for men and women leaders over a period of time can reduce the effects of
gender stereotypes on evaluation of the leaders (Powell, 1990). As gender
stereotypes change over time in the general population, they will probably become
less important as a source of biased role expectations for leaders. Unfortunately, the
changes in gender role stereotypes and implicit theories have been slow, especially
among male managers (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Epitropaki & Martin,
2004; Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2002).
Other possible reasons for the glass ceiling have been suggested (Ragins et al., 1998;
Schein, 2001; Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994). The explanations include (1) lack of
opportunity to gain experience and visibility in types of positions that would
facilitate advancement, (2) higher standards of performance for women than for
men, (3) exclusion of women from informal networks that aid advancement, (4) lack
of encouragement and opportunity for developmental activities, (5) lack of
opportunity for effective mentoring, (6) lack of strong efforts to gain access to
leadership positions, (7) difficulties created by competing family demands, (8) lack of
strong action by top management to ensure equal opportunity, (9) bias to select and
promote individuals who are similar to the (male) managers who make the decisions,
and (10) intentional efforts by some men to retain control of the most powerful
positions for themselves. The explanations are not mutually exclusive, and they may
combine to create an inhospitable corporate climate for female managers.
Interest in studying barriers to advancement for women has been increasing. A study
by Bell and Nkomo (2001) found that one of the major barriers (especially for black
women) was limited access to social and informal networks in their organizations. A
study by Babcock and Laschever (2003) found that women were less likely than men
to ask for promotion and initiate the types of negotiations likely to favor it. A study by
Lyness and Heilman (2006) found that women needed more of the required skills
than men to advance to executive positions, and the difference was greater for the
types of positions traditionally held by men. These studies and others have increased
our knowledge about barriers to advancement for women, but more research is
needed to determine the relative importance of different causes and how the
different causes interact to limit the number of women in top leadership positions.
A small number of U.S. companies have made concerted effort over the past two
decades to eliminate barriers to advancement of women into top management
positions. An example is Xerox, where in the 1980s, female employees formed a
Women’s Alliance to influence top management to promote more women to
management positions. The effort was successful, and Xerox is routinely ranked
among the best places for women to work. In 2001, Xerox was one of only a small
number of Fortune 500 companies with a female CEO, and her successor CEO at
Xerox was an African-American women. The events at Xerox suggest that faster

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
progress could be made if more companies made a similar effort to eliminate barriers
to the selection of women and minorities for top management positions.
Findings in Research on Gender Differences

Many studies have compared men and women leaders with regard to their
leadership behavior. Reviews of this research on gender and leadership disagree
about the results (e.g., Bass, 1990; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Eagly, Darau, & Makhijani,
1995; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Powell, 1993). Some reviewers concluded that there is
no evidence of important gender differences in leadership behaviors or skills. Other
reviewers concluded that there are gender-related differences for some behaviors or
skills in some situations. A debate published in Leadership Quarterly shows the
complexity of the issues and the extent to which scholars disagree (Eagly & Carli,
2003a, 2003b; Vecchio, 2002, 2003).
Many of the early studies on gender differences in leadership behavior involved task
and relationship behavior. Eagly and Johnson (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of
the gender studies with actual managers and found no gender differences in the use
of task-oriented behavior or supportive behavior. However, their study did find that
participative leadership was used slightly more by women than by men. In a more
recent meta-analysis (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003), women used
slightly more transformational leadership behavior than men, and the primary
difference was for individualized consideration, which includes supportive behavior
and efforts to develop subordinate’s skills and confidence.
Results for transactional leadership were mixed and difficult to interpret. Results from
studies on gender differences in leadership effectiveness are also inconsistent. A
meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (1995) found no overall difference in effectiveness for
men and women managers. However, when role requirements for different types of
managerial positions were identified, male managers were more effective than
women managers in positions that required strong task skills, and women managers
were more effective in positions that required strong interpersonal skills. Because
most leadership positions require both types of skills, gender is unlikely to be useful
as a predictor of leadership effectiveness for these positions.
Limitations of Research on Gender Differences

Serious limitations in much of the research on gender differences complicate
interpretation of the results. One major problem is the lack of a clear definition of
gender (Ely & Padavic, 2007). In some cases, it refers to anatomical sex (male vs.
female), and in others it refers to a set of personal characteristics often associated
more with one sex than with another. These conceptions of gender characteristics
are not constant across studies, and it is seldom clear how much empirical support
exists for strong differences between men and women.
In comparative studies, a major problem is contamination from extraneous variables

(see Ely & Padavic, 2007; Lefkowitz, 1994). Gender is often correlated with other
variables known to affect leader behavior (e.g., level, function, time in position, type
of organization), and most studies of gender differences in leadership do not control
for the differential effects of organizational variables on men and women leaders.
People may be attracted to a profession (e.g., women to nursing, men to police work)
because it involves the use of “natural” skills and behaviors, or because their
opportunities are limited and their choices influenced by strong sex-role stereotypes.
If a study includes more women than men in types of leadership positions that
require a lot of supportive and participative behavior, then (unless type of position is
controlled) the results will seem to indicate that women leaders are generally more
supportive and participative. If the study has more men in types of leadership

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
positions that require assertive and decisive behavior, then the results will seem to
indicate that men generally have more of these attributes. Unfortunately, most
comparative studies reporting male−female differences do not control for this type
of contamination.
Another type of biased result can occur in a comparative study that fails to take into
account how organizational factors may have a differential influence on the skills of
men and women who are in the same type of leadership position. For example, if
strong interpersonal and political skills facilitate advancement into executive
positions but the standards for selection are more difficult for women than for men,
then fewer women will advance but they will have more of these skills than the men
who advance. Unless this bias in taken into account, the results comparing male to
female executives may be incorrectly interpreted as showing that women generally
have stronger interpersonal and political skills.
Differential role expectations can also influence the measurement of leader behavior,
skills, or performance for men and women in the same type of leadership position
(Eagly & Chin, 2010). For example, if most raters share common gender stereotypes,
then their ratings will reflect a combination of a leader’s real behavior and the rater’s
biased perception of it. Thus, stereotypes about gender (or race, ethnic background,
age, education) can result in inflated differences when in reality there is no difference.
On the other hand, for male and female leaders in similar positions, role expectations
that influence leader behavior can make gender differences more difficult to discover.
For example, if strong role expectations in an organization influence women to
exhibit “masculine” attributes such as toughness and assertiveness, then it will be
more difficult to find significant differences between men and women on these
attributes. In an organization without strong role expectations, actual gender
differences are more likely to emerge and be noted. Even if women in some type of
leadership position have more of the relevant skills than men in that position, ratings
of overall leadership effectiveness may fail to reflect this difference if the raters have
different role expectations for women, or ratings are biased by the belief that women
are less able to do the job effectively.
Another difficulty in evaluating results in research on gender differences in

leadership is caused by the type of data analysis and reporting of results. Many
studies report tests of statistical differences without reporting effect sizes. In studies
with large samples, it is possible to find a difference that is statistically significant but
has no practical significance. Knowing the sex of a leader is of no practical help for
predicting the person’s behavior or effectiveness when there are large differences
within each gender group. Studies that fail to provide evidence of practical
significance perpetuate exaggerated stereotypes about men and women.
The utility of meta-analyses for interpreting research on gender differences is limited

when the results in the published literature are not representative. Significant but
small gender differences may result from unrepresentative sampling of studies and
confounding within some studies. Assessment of gender differences is seldom the
primary purpose for conducting a survey field study on leadership, but most studies
include gender in the demographic information about the sample. It is easy to check
on any gender differences, and the popularity of the topic means that significant
relationships involving gender are likely to be reported more often than
non-significant relationships.
Identifying Causes and Reducing Discrimination

Most studies on gender and leadership are focused on determining if there is a
difference between men and women, not on determining the cause of any

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
differences. If the research is able to find differences with both statistical and practical
significance, then it is essential to discover the reasons for them. The types of
confounding and biases described earlier are one likely cause of the differences. If
significant gender differences remain after these biases are removed, then a possible
explanation involves biological differences created by evolutionary processes that
occurred over thousands of years in primitive times (Browne, 2006; Geary, 1998).
Another possible explanation is that differential treatment during childhood causes
men and women to have different values, traits, skills, and ways of dealing with
situations. Although not mutually exclusive, these explanations lead to different
implications for the selection and training of leaders and the elimination of unfair
discrimination. Unfortunately, most studies on gender differences in leadership
provide little information about the reasons for any differences that are found. In the
absence of such evidence, people are more likely to attribute gender differences to
inherent biological factors than to things that could be changed.
Equally important to understanding the reasons for any real gender differences is the
need to find ways to eliminate unfair discrimination. The essential skills and
behaviors for effective leadership differ somewhat across situations, and some types
of leadership positions may provide a slight advantage either to men or to women.
However, any gender advantage is likely to be a small one, which means that gender
should not be an important qualification for the position.
Female candidates are likely to be rated as less qualified than male candidates for
many types of leadership positions unless accurate information about each person’s
skill and experience is collected and used in the selection decision (Heilman, 2001;
Heilman & Haynes, 2005). To avoid bias from gender stereotypes and prejudice, a
special effort should be made to ensure that the relevant skills are accurately
assessed when selecting leaders. If possible, selection and promotion decisions
should made by people who understand how to avoid bias resulting from
stereotypes and implicit assumptions. Affirmative action guidelines can provide
helpful guidance for avoiding unfair discrimination in the selection of leaders. For
leadership positions that require skills more likely to be possessed by male (or
female) candidates, providing relevant training and developmental experiences to
any candidates who need them will help equalize opportunities for advancement.
Summary of Leader Gender Research

More systematic and comprehensive research is needed to determine the extent of
any gender differences in leadership and the reasons for them. It is essential to
examine how organizational and cultural factors influence the perceptions and
behaviors that shape gender identity. Given the inconsistent findings and limitations
of research on gender differences in leadership, the conclusion reached by Powell
(1990, p. 74) still seems correct:
There is little reason to believe that either women or men make superior
managers, or that women and men are different types of managers. Instead,
there are likely to be excellent, average, and poor managerial performers
within each sex. Success in today’s highly competitive marketplace calls for
organizations to make best use of the talent available to them. To do this, they
need to identify, develop, encourage, and promote the most effective
managers, regardless of sex.
Managing Diversity
Diversity can take many forms, including differences in race, ethnic identity, age,
gender, education, physical appearance, socio-economic level, and sexual
orientation. Diversity in the workforce is increasing in the United States and Europe

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
(Milliken & Martins, 1996). More women are entering traditionally male jobs, the
number of older workers is increasing, and there is more diversity with regard to
ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds. The increasing number of joint ventures,
mergers, and strategic alliances is bringing together people from different types of
organizations and national cultures.
As noted in earlier chapters, diversity offers potential benefits and costs for a group
or organization (Cox & Blake, 1991; Kochan et al., 2003; Milliken & Martins, 1996;
Triandis et al., 1994; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). A greater variety of
perspectives increases creativity, and full utilization of a diverse workforce will
increase the amount of available talent for filling important jobs. However, diversity
can also result in more distrust and conflict, lower satisfaction, and higher turnover.
An organization is less likely to have shared values and strong member commitment
when it has many diverse members who identify primarily with their own subgroup.
Thus, managing diversity is an important but a difficult responsibility of leaders in the
twenty-first century.
Fostering Appreciation and Tolerance

Leaders can do many things to foster appreciation and tolerance for diversity. Some
recommended action steps for individual leaders are listed in Table 14.3. These
actions can be divided into two categories that are similar to the distinction made
earlier for ethical leadership behavior. Some actions seek to encourage tolerance and
appreciation, whereas other actions challenge discrimination and intolerance.
Table 14.3 Guidelines for Managing Diversity
Encourage Tolerance and Appreciation

• Set an example in your own behavior of appreciation for diversity.
• Encourage respect for individual differences.
• Promote understanding of different values, beliefs, and traditions.
• Explain the benefits of diversity for the team or organization.
• Encourage and support others who promote tolerance of diversity.
Discourage Intolerance and Discrimination
• Discourage use of stereotypes to describe people.
• Identify biased beliefs and role expectations for women or minorities.
• Challenge people who make prejudiced comments.
• Speak out to protest against unfair treatment based on prejudice.
• Take disciplinary action to stop harassment of women or minorities.
Diversity training programs provide a formal approach to encourage tolerance,

understanding, and appreciation (Cox & Blake, 1991). One objective of diversity
training is to create a better understanding of diversity problems and the need for
self-awareness about stereotyping and intolerance. Many people are not aware of
their own stereotypes and implicit assumptions about diverse groups, nor do they
understand that even when real differences exist, they are usually small and do not
apply to many people in the group being stereotyped. Another objective of diversity
training is to educate employees about real cultural or demographic differences and
how to respond to them in the workplace. The specific aspects of diversity that are
included vary depending on the program (e.g., ethnic background, religion, national
culture, age differences, employee sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities). It is
important for people to understand how differences can be an advantage rather than
a liability. Avon, Hewlett-Packard, Mobil Oil, Procter & Gamble, and Xerox are just a

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
few examples of companies that have used such programs. A problem with some
diversity training programs is their emphasis on placing blame for discrimination
rather than on increasing self-awareness and mutual understanding (Nemetz &
Christensen, 1996). Leaders who implement diversity training should keep the
content of the program consistent with an appealing vision of what appreciation of
diversity can mean for all members of the organization.
Structural mechanisms to uncover discrimination and reward tolerance are also
helpful. Examples include (1) appraisal criteria that include diversity issues, (2) task
forces or advisory committees to help identify discrimination or intolerance and
develop remedies, (3) measures that allow systematic monitoring of progress, and (4)
hotlines or other special mechanisms that make it easier for employees to report
discrimination and intolerance. Efforts to change attitudes are more likely to be
successful when diversity training is directed at people who have not already formed
strong prejudices, and the organization has a culture that supports appreciation for
diversity (Nemetz & Christensen, 1996).
Providing Equal Opportunity

To make full use of the talent represented by the diverse members of the
organization, it is essential to eliminate constraints that prevent qualified people
from selection for important positions. Many things can be done to facilitate equal
opportunity and reduce discrimination in personnel decisions (Cox, 1991). Surveys of
employee attitudes can be used to identify problems and assess progress. The
organizational communications media can be used to describe what is being done to
promote equal opportunity and report achievements.
Unfair discrimination can be reduced by the use of selection criteria based on
relevant skills rather than biased conceptions. The assessments used for selection
and promotion decisions will be more accurate if the raters who make them are
trained or otherwise helped to reduce biases caused by racial, ethnic, or gender role
stereotypes. The stereotypes can include both positive and negative features, and
when they lurk below conscious awareness, their influence on the interpretation and
evaluation of another person’s behavior is more difficult to detect (Eagly & Chin,
2010). One method for reducing this type of bias is a “structured free recall”
intervention (Baltes, Bauer, & Frensch, 2007; Bauer & Baltes, 2002). The raters are
asked to recall examples of both positive and negative behaviors by a candidate
before rating the person’s qualifications for a position.
The advancement by women and minorities is facilitated by mentorship programs
that provide adequate advice, encouragement, and assistance. Leadership
development programs should provide equal opportunities for people who want to
learn relevant skills and gain valuable experience. Affirmative action programs can be
helpful if they are well designed and implemented (Harrison et al., 2006). The
programs are likely to be less controversial and more successful if the need for them
is clearly understood by the members of an organization, and ways are found to
encourage affirmative action without imposing reverse discrimination.
The human resources management department usually has primary responsibility for
many of the processes that affect diversity and equal opportunity, such as recruiting,
selection, employee orientation, performance appraisal, training, and mentoring.
However, the responsibility for providing equal opportunity should not be relegated
solely to human resource staff specialists. A successful effort to improve diversity and
equal opportunity requires strong support by top management and managers at all
levels of the organization.
Other approaches for achieving equal opportunity are possible at a national level.
Corporate boards of directors have only about 13 to 15 percent women members in

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
the United States and Europe, and efforts are being made to help women penetrate
this glass ceiling. Corporate boards determine the selection of CEOs, and more
balanced boards should help to increase the number of women CEOs. Some Europe
countries have been adopting quotas for the number of women directors. For
example, Norway adopted a quota in 2002 and has already reached the mandated
level of 40 percent women directors. France and Spain recently passed a similar
quota. Efforts to eliminate discrimination in the selection of leaders are not limited to
legal options. Individuals can initiate voluntary campaigns to increase equal
opportunity, and the following example describes what one CEO is doing in Britain
(Baker, 2011).
Helena Morrissey, the CEO of Newton Investment Management, is trying to

increase the number of women on the boards of British companies. In
November of 2010, Morrissey formed the 30 percent club to put pressure on
companies to employ 30% female directors. She has already persuaded more
than 20 CEOs of major British companies to accept this challenge. There are
some compelling statistics in favor of her campaign. In a survey of 279
companies in Europe, Brazil, Russia, China and India from 2007 to 2009,
McKinsey & Co. found that companies with the greatest share of women on
their executive committees had a 41 percent higher return on equity than
companies with no women members. A study in the USA found that firms
with three or more female directors had a 45 percent higher return on equity
and sales than firms without female directors. The timing seems good for
Morrissey’s initiative. The recent financial crisis has resulted in more
challenges to company boards for their lack of adequate oversight of top
management, and adding more women directors may make boards more
independent. Other countries across Europe are adopting quotas, and unless
voluntary efforts are successful in Britain, there will be pressure to adopt
quotas there as well.
Summary
With the rapid pace of globalization and economic development, cross-cultural
leadership has become an important topic for research. Some leader attributes are
considered important for effective leadership in all cultures that have been studied,
but other attributes vary in importance from one culture to another. Cultural values
and beliefs are likely to influence actual leader behavior, especially when they are
also consistent with core values for the organization.
The amount of cross-cultural research is increasing, but the methodological

difficulties in conducting this type of research are substantial. Equivalence of
meaning is not assured in many studies, the sampling procedures are inadequate,
controls for contaminating factors are absent, explanatory variables are not included,
and interpretation of results is questionable. Faster progress may require greater use
of large-scale research projects such as GLOBE.
Sex-based discrimination in the selection and promotion of leaders continues to be a

serious problem in large organizations. There are several different reasons for such
discrimination, but more research is needed to understand the causes and find ways
to deal with them. Many studies have examined gender-based differences in
leadership behavior and effectiveness, but the findings are weak and inconsistent.
Future studies need to control for effects of likely contaminating variables, report the
magnitude of any significant differences that are found, and measure processes that
provide insight into the reasons for the differences.
An important responsibility for leaders in this new century is the management of

diversity, which can take many forms. Leaders play an essential role in helping to

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
bring about equal opportunity and elimination of unfair discrimination in selection

and promotion decisions. Leaders can do many things to encourage tolerance and
appreciation of diversity in organizations. All leaders in the organization should share
the responsibility for improving diversity and ensuring equal opportunity. Leadership
at the national level is also important in the continuing efforts to eliminate unfair
discrimination for all minorities and ethnic groups.
Key Terms
cross-cultural differences gender egalitarianism performance orientation

cultural value dimensions glass ceiling power distance
discrimination in GLOBE sex-role stereotypes
personnel decisions
humane orientation uncertainty avoidance
diversity training in-group collectivism
Yukl. Original materials from Leadership in organizations © copyright

Pearson 2013. All rights reserved.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
QUICK QUIZ
If you feel ready, please attempt the following quiz . Don’t worry if there are some
questions you can’t answer − you can always try again later.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISES
Attempt the following exercises . If you have understood the reading you should be
able to answer these questions competently.
A model answer citing key extracts from the Essential reading is available for each
question, but try to answer on your own first. Your responses won’t match the model
answers exactly, but you should compare your performance with the model and
consider whether you took all the relevant factors into account. Rate your
performance honestly. If you haven’t performed as well as you hoped, you may need
to go over parts of the chapter again.
The self-assessment exercises should help you clarify your own understanding of the
different aspects of culture and gender in leadership and how to address these in
your own organisation(s).

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE
Build your self-awareness as a leader

On a blank sheet of paper draw the seven continents of the world, or as many as
you can. Once you’ve completed this, find an online map and compare your
drawing with it.
Reflection
How many continents did you place correctly?
Where did you start your map? What’s the first place you drew? What continent
is in the centre? Why?
Reasons
What does your map tell you about your knowledge of the world?
Alternatives
Besides your own knowledge of the world, explore other ways of mapping and
think about how these might provide a different vision of the world than the
one you are usually presented (e.g. Mercator vs. Peters projections).

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
CASE STUDY
Case study instructions
The focus of your initial analysis should be to understand the leadership dilemmas in
the case study and what they say about effective leadership, not to find solutions for
specific problems. In making this analysis, you should try to use the concepts and
theories discussed in this topic. After you have achieved a broader understanding, it
is easier to determine what problems exist (if any), how they could have been
avoided and what the manager should do next to deal with them.
Leadership situations are complex and managers are faced with trade offs on a
regular basis. Try to consider different interpretations of the case study, rather than
quickly focusing on a single, narrow interpretation. Look for multiple causes of
problems, rather than a simple explanation.
You should try to understand why people acted the way they did in the case study;
try to avoid stereotyping them or looking for someone to blame for problems. Most
of the cases depict managers with both strengths and weaknesses who are trying to
do their jobs in a way they think is appropriate.
Just as there are seldom simple explanations for leadership problems, there are
seldom guaranteed remedies. In cases describing a manager who was generally
successful, consider what the manager could have done to be even more successful,
or if there are some completely different approaches that may also have been
effective in that situation. In cases describing a manager who has gotten into trouble,
consider whether the person has some strengths rather than focusing only on
weaknesses.
Try to be open to alternative viewpoints when discussing the case study. Your group
discussion will be more successful if one or two people do not try to dominate it and
impose their ideas on the group. Different interpretations of a case study provide an
opportunity to demonstrate how people approach a problem with different
assumptions, biases and priorities.
Try to relate the case to your own experiences. For example, describe examples of
similar incidents you might have experienced in your current or previous jobs or in
other organisations of which you were a member.
Case study: Madison, Jones, and Conklin

After graduating from a prestigious business school, Laura Kravitz accepted a
job at Madison, Jones, and Conklin, a medium-sized firm that did accounting
and consulting projects for corporate clients. After a series of successful
assignments working as a member of a project team, Laura was promoted to a
team manager position with broader responsibilities. Laura felt confident about
her qualifications. The other team managers seemed to respect her, and clients
were happy with the projects she managed. With this record of success, Laura
hoped to eventually become a partner in the company. However, as the only
woman manager in a male-dominated company, she knew that there would be
some obstacles to overcome.
Laura felt that some of the senior managers were very conservative and did not
accept her as an equal. In the quarterly planning meetings, these managers
were often inattentive when she spoke and seemed unreceptive to her
suggestions for improvements. Several times she proposed an idea that was

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
ignored, and the same idea was later suggested by someone else who received
the credit for it.
Laura did not have a mentor in the company to tell people about her skills and
help to advance her career. Moreover, she did not feel accepted into the informal
network of relationships that provided opportunities to interact with senior
managers. She did not like to play golf and was not a member of the exclusive
golf club to which many of the male managers belonged. She was not invited to
most of the social activities hosted by senior managers for friends and select
members of the company.
Laura also felt that the assignment of projects was biased. The high-profile
projects were always given to the male managers. When Laura asked her boss
for more challenging projects, she was told that the older clients usually
preferred to deal with men. Because she was not given the more profitable
accounts, her performance numbers did not look as good as the numbers for
some of the male managers. Two male managers who had joined the company
around the same time she was hired were promoted ahead of her.
Frustrated by the apparent “glass ceiling” at the company, Laura asked to meet
with the president to talk about her career. The president was surprised to hear
that Laura was unhappy about her advancement in the company. He assured
her that she was a valuable employee and should be patient about a promotion.
However, after another year with little improvement in how she was treated,
Laura resigned from the company. With two friends from graduate school who
also felt unappreciated, she formed a new company and served as the chief
executive officer. In a relatively short time, this company became highly
successful.
SOURCE: Copyright © 1999 by Gary Yukl

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
1. What forms of gender discrimination did Laura experience?
2. What could Laura have done to overcome the obstacles she encountered?
3. What could the president have done to create equal opportunity in this
company?
Yukl. Original materials from Leadership in organizations © copyright 2013 Pearson.

All rights reserved.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
DISCUSSION ACTIVITY
After reading the case study, discuss the questions that follow it in the discussion
forum.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY
In this section of the portfolio you should be working with the various models of
leadership that you have studied in this topic and use these to further your
reflections upon yourself as a leader.
Unlike explicit bias (which reflects the attitudes or beliefs that one endorses at a
conscious level), implicit bias is the bias in judgement and/or behaviour that results
from subtle cognitive processes (e.g. implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that
often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.
The underlying implicit attitudes and stereotypes responsible for implicit bias are
those beliefs or simple associations that a person makes between an object and its
evaluation that ‘...are automatically activated by the mere presence (actual or
symbolic) of the attitude object’ (David, Gaertner, Kawakami, and Hudson, 2002, p.
94). In working through issues of diversity and leadership it is helpful to explore our
own implicit biases so that we can work on these through development and training
to become better leaders and create more inclusive organisational communities.
Project Implicit, a famous collaboration between American universities, has

developed several online tests for implicit bias. It is available to the general public (in
exchange for them being able to use your results in their ongoing research). For this
portfolio exercise, go to their website https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk
and take one or more of the following Social Attitudes tests:
• gender-career
• skin-tone
• sexuality
• disability
• religion
• race
(When it comes to filling in the postcode, you might prefer to use the
University of London’s: WC1B 5DN.) For your portfolio, report on your results
and reflect upon these within the context of readings for the topic. Think
through what some of the models explored at the beginning have to say about
the test and your results as well as the implications for your leadership in an
organisational setting.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
TOPIC SUMMARY

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
FURTHER READING AND RESOURCES

Further reading and resources for this topic are:
Ayman, R. and K. Korabik ‘Leadership: why gender and culture matter’, American
Psychologist 65 2010, pp. 157−70.
Bell, E. L. and S. M. Nkomo Our separate ways: black and white women and the
struggle for professional identity. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001).
Cox, T. H. and S. Blake ‘Managing cultural diversity: implications for

organizational competitiveness’, Academy of Management Executive 5(3) 1991,
pp. 45−56.
Dorfman, P. W. ‘International and cross- cultural leadership research’ in B. J.

Punnet and O. Shenkar (eds), Handbook for international management research.
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. 267−349.
Dorfman, P. W. ‘International and cross- cultural leadership research’ in B. J.

Punnett and O. Shenkar (eds), Handbook for international management research.
(Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2003; 2nd ed.).
Dovidio, J. F., S. L. Gaertner, K. Kawakami and G. Hodson ‘Why can’t we just get
along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust’, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology 8(2) 2002, pp. 88−102; available at:
http://psychotherapy-and-psychoanalysis.com/NPI_articles_for_download/Dovidio_aversive_racism-2.p
Eagly, A. H. and J. L. Chin ‘Diversity and leadership in a changing world’,

American Psychologist 65 2010, pp. 216−24.
Heilman, M. E. ‘Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent

women’s ascent up the organizational ladder’, Journal of Social Issues 57 2001,
pp. 657−74.
Heilman, M. E. and M. C. Haynes ‘No credit where credit is due: attributional

rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams’, Journal of Applied
Psychology 90(5) 2005, pp. 905−16.
Hofstede, G. Culture and organizations. (London: McGraw-Hill, 1992).
Hofstede, G. ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, Academy of

Management Executive 7 1993, pp. 81−90.
Hofstede, G., G. J. Hofstede and M. Minkov Culture and organizations: software of

the mind. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).
House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta Culture,

leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 countries. (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2004).
Kochan, T., K. Bezrukova, R. Ely, S. Jackson, A. Joshi and K. Jehn et al. ‘The effects
of diversity on business performance: report of the diversity research network’,
Human Resource Management 42(1) 2003, pp. 3−21.
Sellers, P. ‘Gerry Laybourne reemerges, wisdom intact’, Fortune-Postcards, 26 May

2009; available at:
http://fortune.com/2009/05/26/gerry-laybourne-reemerges-wisdom-intact/
Trompenaars, A. and C. Hampden-Turner Riding the waves of culture:

understanding culture and diversity in business. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012).

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Vecchio, R. P. ‘Leadership and the gender advantage’, Leadership Quarterly 13

2002, pp. 643−71.
Vecchio, R. P. ‘In search of the gender advantage’, Leadership Quarterly 14 2003,

pp. 835−50.
Wilson, D. C. ‘When equal opportunity knocks’, Gallup Management Journal, 13

April 2006.
YouTube videos:
• TED talk: Susan Colantuano ‘The career advice you probably didn’t get’:
www.ted.com/talks/susan_colantuono_the_career_advice_you_probably_didn_t_get?language=en
• TED talk: Michelle Obama ‘A passionate, personal case for education’:

www.ted.com/talks/michelle_obama
• TED talk: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie ‘The danger of a single story’:

www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en
• TEDx talk: Dr Helen Turnbull ‘Inclusion, exclusion, illusion and collusion’:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdV8OpXhl2g
• TEDx talk: Courtney Tritch ‘Let’s talk diversity and inclusion’:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec9Oh3JtlJM
Further reading will deepen your understanding in some areas but it is not required
in order to pass the module. You may wish to consult the reading suggested here or
others that you find, but please note that we cannot guarantee that further reading
will be accessible to you and we do not undertake to supply it via the Online Library.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
PROGRESS LOG
We recommend that you now complete your topic progress log. This should allow
you to monitor and assess your progress and your understanding of the topic before
you move on.

GEORGIA ROSE RAY
Topic Topic Objectives How confident are you?
Completely Partially Unsure

confident confident
Topic 7: Diversity and 7.1 Explain the difficulties of

leadership studying cross-cultural leadership
and understand how cultural
values are related to leadership.
7.2 Identify the impact of gender

on leadership and explain
how gender issues have been
studied and the limitations of this
Date research.
7.3 Assess and identify how to

manage diversity and provide
equal opportunities.
7.4 Analyse your own implicit

biases.

Topic 7: Diversity and Leadership

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Topic 7: Diversity and Leadership

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GEORGIA ROSE RAY

georgiabluemanagement@gmail.com University of London

484 Topic 7 DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP

georgiabluemanagement@gmail.com University of London