Managing People across Cultures

A CROSS-CULTURAL MAP OF LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

Mara Jos Bosch* Pablo Cardona** CCMN***

* Doctoral Student, IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. Email: mjbosch@iese.edu ** Associate Professor, IESE Business School. Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. ***Prof. Csar Bullara, Instituto Superior de Empresa (ISE), So Paulo, Brasil. Prof. M Victoria Caparas. University of Asia & the Pacific School of Management, Manila, Philippines. Prof. Alexey Svishchev, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. Prof. Michael Morley, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Prof. Sadia Nadeem, University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan. Ph.D. Student Wei He, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT
Many authors have developed different models of competencies. These models try to understand which competencies are related to better performance, but most of them were developed locally. This paper tries to find measures of managerial competencies that are reliable across cultures in order to develop a cross cultural map of leadership competencies. Based on Cardona and Garcias framework (2005) we measure leadership competencies for different cultural regions, including the following countries: Brazil, China, Spain, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia and Ireland. We found reliable competencies measures across cultures. We identify three competency dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. Finally we develop a map of leadership profiles and evaluate those profiles for different cultures.

-2-

James MacGregor Burns (1978) suggests that leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth. It is difficult to find a single definition of leadership because there are different approaches in this field (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004). One of these approaches started at the beginning of the 20th century by looking at the traits of the leader (Mann, 1959; McClelland, 1976; Stogdill, 1948). This research stream evolved into an analysis of a richer set of different leadership traits such as cognitive abilities, personality, motivations, social appraisal skills and competencies (Bass, 1990; Boyatzis, 1982; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; McClelland, 1961; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991; Zaccaro et al., 1997).

Competencies were initially defined as behaviors that make leaders effective in their job performance (Boyatzis, 1982). In the sixties, McClelland developed the Job Competence Assessment method (McClelland, 1961), but it was Boyatzis, with his book The Competent Manager (Boyatzis, 1982), who set the basis for the field. In the nineties, Spencer and Spencer (1993) made another important contribution to the study of competencies, developing a Competency Dictionary and a Generic Competency Model that included specific competencies for different members of the organization.

In the last 10 years, many authors have developed different models of competencies (Graf, 2004; Harvey & Novicevic, 2005; Kellerman, 2007; Lawler, 1994; Lobel, 1990; Madlock, 2008; McLagan, 1980; McLagan, 1997; Tubbs, 2004, 2006; Yorkovich, Waddell, & Gerwig, 2007). Most of these models were developed locally and it is questionable whether they are applicable across different cultural contexts. Although one can find studies based on management behavior in different cultures, they mainly focus on cultural dimensions rather than competency dimensions (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006; Yan & Hunt, 2005). In this paper, our objective is to

-3-

find measures of managerial competencies that are reliable across cultures in order to develop a cross cultural map of leadership competencies.

COMPETENCIES BACKGROUND
A. Different Competency Models
The term competency was first proposed in the sixties by McClelland (1961). He proposed that personality could be studied from three perspectives: traits, values and schemas, and motives (McClelland, 1956). From the traits perspective he analyzed different traits of a person: movement traits, cognitive traits, emotional traits and performance traits. From the value and schemas perspective he proposed that personality can be distinguished via three factors: evaluations, activity and potency. These factors represent a framework for the study of concepts related to the self. Finally from the motivational perspective, he shows that greater motive strength facilitates performance and learning. After this study of personality, McClelland related the growth of society to the motive of the need for achievement and introduced the term competency by developing the Competency Assessment Process. This process consists in identifying outstanding and average performers, interviewing a sample from among them, and conceptualizing the competencies that differentiate these two groups. After this, it is necessary to find or develop measures to differentiate good performers from average performers. Finally these measures have to be applied to a new group to see if it can differentiate the good performers from the average ones. This study is based on his previous work on personality.

Boyatzis (1982) defined competency as an underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior performance in a job (p. 21). He focused on the -4-

effective performance of a job. Boyatzis proposed a model where an individuals competencies, job demands and organizational environment are interconnected. The effect of this interconnection produces effective performance. He based his study only on the managers competencies by analyzing their motives, traits, self-concept, knowledge and skills. He proposed a model with two dimensions: the first dimension is the type of competency and the second dimension is the level of each competency. The level of each competency is divided into three: first is the unconscious level that is related to motives and traits; second is the conscious level that is related to the self image; and the third level is the behavioral level that is related to knowledge and skills.

The purpose of his study was to determine the characteristics of a manager that are related to effective performance. He divided competencies into two. The first ones are competencies related to effective and/or superior performance on a job. The second set is comprised of threshold competencies that are not causally related to superior job performance (Boyatzis, 1982). Boyatzis found 12 competencies related to managerial effectiveness; these were: efficiency orientation, proactivity, diagnostic use of concepts, concern with impact, self-confidence, use of oral presentations, conceptualization, use of socialized power, managing group process, perceptual objectivity, self control, and stamina and adaptability. He also found seven threshold competencies: use of unilateral power, accurate self-assessment, positive regard, spontaneity, logical thought, specialized knowledge, and developing others.

In the nineties, Spencer and Spencer (1993) defined competencies as underlying characteristics of people that generate ways of behaving or thinking across situations, for a reasonably long period of time. They focused on motives and traits, and developed a model of competencies for different positions in the organization. Woodrufe (1993)

-5-

defined competency as an observable behavior that contributes to the success of a task or function. This definition is very useful because it focuses on measurable behaviors.

In the 2000, Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly and Marks proposed a model of skill-based leadership, which linked competencies with the leadership literature (Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, & Marks, 2000). The model is based on identifying which competencies are the capabilities that an individual must possess in order to perform effectively as a leader in an organization. The model proposes that a leaders performance is based on three types of skills: complex problem-solving skills, solution construction skills, and social judgment skills. Mumford et al. refer to these skills that produce effective performance, as underlying characteristics of a person, the same definition that Boyatzis uses for competencies. The model propositions are five: the first proposition is that these skills can be measured. The second is that they will predict a leaders performance. The third proposition is that each skill should make a unique contribution. The fourth is that these skills are related to experience; and the fifth proposition is that these skills are related to underlying characteristics of the individual. The findings of this study were that patterns of abilities, motives and personality characteristics that are associated with higher skills and knowledge have a positive relationship with the leaders performance.

In the late 1990s, Cardona and Chinchilla proposed a more precise definition of competencies as observable and habitual behaviors (Cardona & Chinchilla, 1999). This definition introduces the condition of repeated behaviors, also known as habits. If a person only demonstrates a specific behavior but for only a short period of time or for only a few times over a long period of time, this does not mean that this person has fully developed that competency.

-6-

Later Cardona and Garcia (2005) developed a map of the main leadership competencies, structured in three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. This model is explained in more detail further in the paper. Each of these dimensions has some underlying competencies that are shown in table 1. --------------------------------------Insert Table 1 around here --------------------------------------Most recently, competencies have been associated with Emotional Intelligence (Boyatzis & Goleman, 2006; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Seal, Boyatzis, & Bailey, 2006). Certain authors have suggested that emotional intelligence is related to some specific competencies: self awareness, self management, social awareness and relationship management (Seal et al., 2006). Emotional and social intelligence give a framework for describing human disposition and helps distinguish behavioral manifestations from the self and from interpersonal awareness. In the Emotional Social Intelligence Competency Model, the distinction between the two types of intelligence is important. On the one hand, Emotional Intelligence contains Self Awareness and Self Management. On the other hand, Social Intelligence is formed by Social Awareness and Relationship Management, each one with its underlying competencies (see figure 1). The model proposes that competencies are developed through a learning process. --------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 around here --------------------------------------Another field related to the study of competencies is positive psychology. Positive psychology studies strengths and virtues of people that make them do their best. The main focus of study is character strength and virtues. It is suggested that both of these are related to individual well-being, and organizational efficiency and performance (Wright & Goodstein, 2007). The importance of this for organizations is substantial

-7-

because individuals who are satisfied with life are good problem-solvers, show better work performance, tend to be more resistant to stress, and experience better physical health p.607 (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Peterson and Seligman propose three conceptual levels: virtue, strength of character and themes. Virtues are proposed to be universal and the main subject of study. Character strengths are the mechanisms to reflect a virtue. Peterson and Seligmans framework proposes six universal virtues: Wisdom and Knowledge: creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning and perspective; Courage: bravery, persistence, integrity and vitality; Humanity: love,

kindness, social intelligence; Justice: citizenship, fairness and leadership; Temperance: forgiveness and mercy, humility/modesty, prudence and self regulation; and Transcendence: appreciation of beauty ad excellence, gratitude, hope, humor and spirituality (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

B. Integration of Competency Models

All the models try to understand which competencies are related to better performance. Although each model has a different perspective, we can find similarities among them. The first one is the relationship of the different models with the dimensions proposed by Boyatzis: type of competency and the level of each competency. This is important not only because it distinguishes between the effects that a competency has on performance, but also because it shows that competencies are related to learning and developing processes.

A second interesting relation among the models is that there is a lot of overlap in the types of competencies. Among the common concepts utilized are: team work, proactivity, communication, conflict management, among others. Also the competency

-8-

grouping is similar. For example, in both the Cardona & Garcia model and the Emotional Intelligence model, they make very similar groupings. Although not all of them have the same categories, we can distinguish three different dimensions in the literature: one related to the business, one related to the relationship with others, and finally related one to the self development of the person. In order to relate the different models we have constructed a matrix organized by these three dimensions (see appendix 1).

C. Cross Cultural Studies

Recent studies have tried to identify cross cultural leadership characteristics. Javidan et al. proposed that research on leadership can be focused on cultural universals or cultural specific characteristics (Javidan et al., 2006). In their study, they focused on how leaders behave in different cultures.

Javidan et al. propose that individuals from common cultures will share beliefs, personality characteristics, skills, and behaviors that make successful leaders. They propose six leadership profiles and show how these leadership profiles are distributed among the different cultures. The leadership profiles are the following:

Charismatic/value based: this corresponds to a leader who inspires, motivates and bases high outcome expectations on core beliefs.

Team-oriented: this type of leader promotes team building and implements common goals among members.

Participative: this leadership type involves others in the decision making process and implementation.

-9-

Human-oriented: this leader is supportive and reflects compassion and generosity.

Autonomous: this is an independent and individualistic leader.

Self-protective: this leader looks out for individual safety and security.

Another interesting aspect of this study is the proposal of 22 leadership attributes that are desirable across cultures, and eight leadership attributes that are undesirable across cultures. They show some examples of these attributes. For universal facilitators of leadership effectiveness they show the following four groups. 1) Integrity: being trustworthy, just and honest; 2) Charismatic-visionary: having foresight and planning ahead; 3) Charismatic-inspirational: being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating, and building confidence; 4) Team Builder: being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and team integrator (Javidan et al., 2006).

This study takes an American perspective. It uses a hypothetical case of an American executive in charge of teams in different countries. It studies global leadership, not leadership profiles in each country. Besides, Javidan et al. focus on differences across countries, not on common frameworks to compare leadership profiles across cultures.

THE MODEL
In this paper, managerial competencies will be studied across different cultures. Based on Cardona and Garcias framework, we will measure leadership competencies for different cultural regions. Analyzing appendix 1 this is a good initial framework because it includes key competencies in the main dimensions found in the other models. First, we find reliable competencies measures across cultures. Then, we look for those -10-

underlying factors that identify competency dimensions. Finally, we develop a map of leadership profiles and evaluate those profiles for different cultures.

Cardona and Garcias framework (2005) is based on three factors: external, interpersonal and personal. Those dimensions in turn come from an anthropological model proposed by Perz Lpez (1993) which distinguishes three talents that are specific to managers. The first is the Strategic talent, that is, the capacity to develop and implement strategies that lead to the achievement of good financial results. The second is the Executive talent, that is, the capacity to develop efficient relationships with collaborators. And the third is the Personal Leadership talent, that is, the capacity to build trust and sense of mission among collaborators.

A. Map Structure
These definitions are the foundations for the following three types of management competencies in Cardona and Garcias framework:

External competencies are competencies oriented towards producing the greatest economic value to the company. These competencies are related to the knowledge of the business and the use resources that may affect the organizations profitability.

Interpersonal competencies are competencies oriented towards building effective relationships in the organization. These competencies are related to behaviors that develop employees relational capacities and their performance at work.

Personal competencies: are competencies oriented towards developing self-leadership and managers exemplarity and professionalism. They are divided into two factors: external and internal personal competencies. The external personal competencies refer

-11-

to how the manager reacts to the external environment and stimuli, while the internal personal competencies are related to the persons internal decision-making and learning processes. (Cardona et al., 2005). This model works well with Spanish managers, but we do not know if it can be applied across different cultures. Our proposition is that these three levels exist in all cultures. Each of these dimensions is formed by a group of competencies.

Proposition 1: there is a stable structure of leadership competencies across cultures. This structure is divided in three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal.

Based on these three levels, we develop a model of leadership profiles.

B. Leadership Profiles
If the three dimensions are independent, we can develop a map of leadership profiles that distinguishes eight types of leaders. In table 2, E refers to external competencies, I interpersonal competencies and P refers to personal competencies. The characteristics of the eight types of leaders are generated from the dimensions that are represented in each profile. --------------------------------------Insert Table 2 around here ---------------------------------------

-12-

The Strategic Leader is strong only in external competencies. This is a leader that focuses on the task and the action. This leader pays attention on the environment and considers the consequences of every action. Javidan et al.(2006) proposes a similar definition for Self-Protective Leader. The Empathetic Leader is strong only in interpersonal competencies. This leader is focused on the people that work with her, taking care of interpersonal relationships. She knows how to communicate and delegate via teamwork. Javidan et al. (2006) propose a similar definition for Participative Leader. The Reflexive Leader is strong only in personal competencies. This is a person that develops positive personal habits like discipline, humility and courage. This leader shows emotional balance. Javidan et al. (2006) propose a similar definition for Human Oriented Leader. The Charismatic Leader is strong only in external and interpersonal competencies. This leader has great communication capacity; he not only knows how to work with people, but also understands the business needs. Javidan et al. (2006) propose a similar definition for Charismatic/Value-Based Leader. The Visionary Leader is strong only in external and personal competencies. This is a leader that is characterized by new and innovative ideas. He promotes change and continuously encourages new projects. Javidan et al.(2006) propose a similar definition for Autonomous Leader. The Mentor Leader is strong only in interpersonal and personal competencies. This is a leader that focuses on individuals and teams, and promotes the development of her followers and her own well-being. Javidan et al. propose a similar definition for Team Oriented Leader. The Competent Leader is strong in the three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. She knows the environment, takes care of the relationship with her followers and pursues a continuous personal improvement. Finally the Incompetent leader is not strong in any of the three dimensions.

-13-

Proposition 2: There are differences of leadership across cultures. We can categorize these differences using leadership profiles.

METHODOLOGY
We designed a questionnaire following the test by Cardona and Garcia (2005). From the 150 questions of the original test with 6 items per competence, we selected 75 questions with three items per competency. The scale used in the questionnaire is a five point scale from 1 to 5. Two questionnaires were used: one for the manager and another one for three of their subordinates. Collaborators of the Cross Cultural Management Network (CCMN) in seven countries translated the test from its original English to their local language when needed.

Data Gathering
These seven countries were chosen to represent cultural regions proposed by Sagiv and Schwartz (2007). These authors found seven cultural regions: Latin America, Confucian, West Europe, Africa and the Middle East, South Asia, East Europe, and English speaking countries. The final selection of countries included: Brazil, China, Spain, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia and Ireland, corresponding to the above cultural regions respectively. In each country, the collaborator collected data using questionnaires in hard copy or electronic format. The sample was taken from companies of different sectors. In table 3 we summarize the sample size per country.

-14-

--------------------------------------Insert Table 3 around here ---------------------------------------

Methods and Model Specified

Following Spencer et al (1993), we measured competencies using only the subordinates responses because of two reasons. According to these authors it is difficult for people to accurately asses their own competencies. The second reason is that people may not show their real motives and abilities.

In order to find consistent competencies across different countries we map the competencies with Multidimensional Scaling. After mapping it, we carried out an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory structural equation modeling. First we analyzed which competencies where stable across cultures. Then we run an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to find the main dimensions of the model.

RESULTS
A. Map Structure
First, we run an exploratory factor analysis in order to identify consistent dimensions across countries. From the 75 items of the questionnaire, only 26 showed stability in the different national samples. We found three main factors, which correspond to the three dimensions of Cardona and Garcias Model: personal, interpersonal and external (see Table 4). --------------------------------------Insert Table 4 around here

-15-

--------------------------------------The first and second dimensions consist of eight items grouped in four competencies and the third one consists of ten items grouped also in four competencies (see Table 5). --------------------------------------Insert Table 5 around here --------------------------------------The alphas of the competencies and those of the dimensions are shown in Table 6. Most alphas are above acceptable level for the number of items. Only two alphas are below 0.5: Negotiation in Pakistan and Integrity in Ireland. --------------------------------------Insert Table 6 around here --------------------------------------Second, we mapped the competencies using Multidimensional Scaling with the 26 items (see Figure 2). In this map we can distinguish three groups that correspond to the three factors of the exploratory factor analysis. In the external dimension, the two items of the networking competency are not completely grouped with the other items of the external dimension. --------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 around here ---------------------------------------

Finally, we run a confirmatory factor analysis for each dimension separately. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis show a good fit (see Table 7). The personal and external models have satisfactory indices. This suggests that we can accept networking as part of the external dimension. The only index that is below acceptance level is the RMSEA for the interpersonal model. However, for this dimension 2 / df is lower than 3, and the results of the exploratory factor analysis and the multidimensional scaling are good. Thus, we accepted the model of the three factors. The differences in factor means

-16-

are significant in a conventional ANOVA test for all three dimensions: external (F=26.3; P<0.000), interpersonal (F=16.07; P<0.000) and personal: (F=22.14; P<0.000). --------------------------------------Insert Table 7 around here --------------------------------------Once we had the structure of the three dimensions, we run another confirmatory factor analysis for the complete model (see Figure 3). In order to obtain a number of items more appropriate with our sample size, we averaged the items per competency. We used multigroup analysis for testing the model, allowing for differences in means and variances. The goodness of fit indexes are satisfactory for all groups (Chi square: 738.44; df: 411; RMSEA: 0.079; CFI: 0.944; TLI: 0.937). The correlations among dimensions are significant (P< 0.000): interpersonal with external (corr=0.239); personal with external (corr=0.356); personal with interpersonal (corr=0.297). --------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 around here ---------------------------------------

B. Leadership Profiles
We classified managers as having a particular dimension if his or her score for that dimension was higher than the average of the country. For example, if a manager has a higher score than the country average in external and personal dimensions, but not in the interpersonal one, we classified him or her as a Visionary Leader. Doing this for every manager, we calculated the percentage of each type of leader in all countries (see Table 8). After these calculations, we can distinguish four levels of leadership: Level 0 (below average in all dimensions), Level 1 (above average in only one dimension), Level 2 (above average in two dimensions), and Level 3 (above average in all dimensions). See Table 9. -17-

-----------------------------------------------Insert Table 8 and Table 9 around here -------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION
A. Map Structure
Our results show a three-dimensional model of competencies across cultures. The first dimension (external) includes competencies related to the knowledge of the business and the use of resources that may affect the organizations profitability. The second dimension (interpersonal) includes competencies related to the development of effective relationships with subordinates. The third dimension (personal) includes competencies related to self-leadership and professionalism. Thus, the results from this study support our first proposition that there is a stable structure of leadership competencies across cultures, and that this structure is divided in three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal.

In the external dimension, four out of the six original competencies remain consistent across cultures. The competencies in other dimensions differ more from those in the Cardona and Garcias original framework. The new competencies seem to relate to categories proposed by other competency frameworks, especially Positive Psychology and Emotional Intelligence. For example, self-criticism and self-knowledge merged into a new competency that matches Humility in Positive Psychology. Also, competencies such as coaching and team work merged into Kindness from the same framework.

On the other hand, only few items of Charisma in Cardona and Garcias model showed consistency across cultures. Since these items match the definition of Inspiration used

-18-

by Goleman and colleagues in Emotional Intelligence (2002), we called the new scale Inspiration. Finally, the original competency of Self-Control only showed consistency across cultures in few items that we called Discipline. This competency is related to the competency Self-regulation in Positive Psychology.

Two competencies changed from the original dimension to a different one. In the final framework, Integrity belongs to the interpersonal dimension and not to the personal one; our rationale for this change is that integrity is related to fairness in interpersonal relations. Also, Inspiration belongs to the personal dimension and not the interpersonal one; our rational for this change is that, although Inspiration affects the relationships with others, it is based on a strong sense of personal mission.

B. Leadership Profiles
Leadership profiles also show interesting findings. The first finding is that leaders are well distributed through all levels. Secondly, Level 3 is the main group overall and in all countries except for Brazil, China, and Pakistan. Also, it is somewhat surprising the amount of Level 0 leaders that we can find in all countries, especially in Pakistan and Ireland. Finally, in Level 1, the most important profile is the Empathetic Leader. In Level 2, the most important profile is the Mentor Leader. All these findings support our Proposition 2 that there are differences of leadership across cultures, and that we can categorize these differences using leadership profiles.

-19-

One limitation of this study is language. The original questionnaire was written in English and in many cases translation to local languages was needed. This translation could have affected the meaning and stability of some questions. Also, we did not control for origin of organization (national vs. multinational). However, our sample includes companies from different sectors and origins.

This study has important managerial applications. First, our framework of consistent competencies across cultures may allow multinational companies to assess leaders from different countries using a validated tool. Secondly, our map of leadership profiles can help multinational companies identify the best managers in different cultures, build effective cross-cultural teams, and develop international careers for their talent. Finally, our framework may help companies to identify the competencies a candidate should develop in order to fit better in a new culture.

This research uses subordinate responses to assess leadership competencies. Future research should analyze differences between self and subordinate assessments, and try to understand if there are differences across cultures. Also, future research can analyze gender and age differences in leadership profiles. Finally, future research should study outcomes of different leadership profiles, such as organizational citizenship behavior, team performance and job satisfaction.

-20-

References
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. 2004. The Nature of Leadership: Sage Pubns. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill`s handbook of leadership. New York. Boyatzis, R. & Goleman, D. 2006. Emotional and Social Competency Inventory. Boston. Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance: Wiley. Burns, J. M. G. 1978. Leadership: Harper & Row New York. Cardona, P. & Chinchilla, N. 1999. Evaluacin y desarrollo de las competencias directivas, Harvard-Deusto Business Review, Vol. 89. Cardona, P. & Garcia, P. 2005. How to develop Leadership Competences: EUNSA Universidad de Navarra. Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. 2007. Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8): 1035. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence: Harvard Business School Press. Graf, A. 2004. Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management(15:6): 1124-1148. Harvey, M. & Novicevic, M. 2005. The challenges associated with the capitalizations of managerial skills and competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Management(16:8): 1374-1398. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. 2006. In the Eye of the Beholder. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67-90. Kellerman, B. 2007. What every Leader needs to know about followers, Harvard Business Review. Kenny, D. A. & Zaccaro, S. 1983. An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 678-685. Lawler, E. 1994. From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3-15). Lobel, S. 1990. Gobal Leadership Competencies: Managing to a Different Drumbeat. Human Resource Management, 29(1): 39-47.

-21-

Madlock, P. 2008. The link between leadership style, communicator competence and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1): 61-78. Mann, R. D. 1959. A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulleting, 56: 241-270. McClelland, D. C. 1956. Personality. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 7: 39-62. McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society: Van Nostrand Princeton, NJ. McClelland, D. C. 1976. Power is the Great Motivator, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 54: 100-110. McLagan, P. 1980. Competency Model. Training and Development Journal. McLagan, P. 1997. Competencies: the next generation. Training and Development Journal. Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. 2000. Leadership skills: conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 155-170. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. 2004. Strenghts of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Socil and Clinical Psychology, 23(5): 603-619. Prez Lpez, J. A. 1993. Fundamentos de la direccin de empresas. Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. 2004. Character strenghts and virtues: A handbook and classification: New York: Oxford University Press/Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. 2007. Cultural values in organizations: insights for Europe. European J. International Management, 1(3). Seal, C., Boyatzis, R., & Bailey, J. 2006. Fostering Emotional and Social Intelligence in Organizations. Organizational Management Journal, 3(3): 190-209. Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness: Free Press New York. Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. 1993. Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance: Wiley. Stogdill, R. M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press. Tubbs, S. 2004. Identifying Global Leadership Competencies: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Setp 2004. Tubbs, S. 2006. Exploring a Taxonomy of Global Leadership Competencies and Metacompetencies. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 8(2).

-22-

Woodrufe, C. 1993. Assessment Centers: identifying and developing competences. London: Institute Personnel Management. Wright, T. & Goodstein, J. 2007. Character is not "Dead" in Management Research: A Review of Individual Character and Organizational-Level Virtue. Journal of Management, 33(6): 928-958. Yan, J. & Hunt, J. G. J. 2005. A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(1): 49. Yorkovich, S. A., Waddell, G. S., & Gerwig, R. K. 2007. Competency-based Assessment Systems: Encouragement Toward a More Holistic Approach. Northeast Business & Economics Association: 77-81. Zaccaro, S., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 308-315. Zaccaro, S., White, L., Kilcullen, R., Parker, C. W., Williams, D., & O`Connor-Boes, J. 1997. Cognitive and temperament predictors of Army civilian leadership. In A. R. I. f. S. a. B. Science (Ed.): Bethesda, MD.

-23-

Table 1: Cardona and Garcias map of leadership competencies: External Interpersonal Communication Business Vision Conflict management Organizational Vision Charisma Customer orientation Delegation Resources management Coaching Negotiation Team work Networking Personal Internal External 1) Self- improvement 1) Proactivity Self-criticism Initiative Self-knowledge Optimism Learning Ambition 2) Self management 2) Personal management Decision making Time Management Information Management Self-control Emotional Balance Stress Management Integrity

-24-

Table 2: Leadership profiles

Strategic E 0 0 Empathetic 0 I 0 Reflexive 0 0 P Charismatic E I 0 Visionary E 0 P Mentor 0 I P Competent E I P Incompetent 0 0 0

Table 3: Sample size per country and culture

Culture Latin America Confucian West Europe Africa and the Middle East South Asia East Europe English speaking Country Brazil China Spain Pakistan Philippines Russia Ireland TOTAL N of subordinates 141 162 111 141 129 156 63 903 N of Managers 47 54 37 47 43 52 21 301 % of Women 14.8% 33.3% 10.8% 17.0% 46.5% 26.9% 23.8% 25.2%

-25-

Table 4: Factor analysis

----------------------------------------------------------Variable | Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 | Uniqueness -------------+------------------------------+-------------item1 | 0.3196 0.1758 0.6029 | 0.5035 item2 | 0.3338 0.1294 0.6178 | 0.4902 item3 | 0.3598 0.2066 0.5498 | 0.5257 item4 | 0.3332 0.1142 0.5858 | 0.5327 item5 | 0.3417 0.2070 0.6076 | 0.4712 item6 | 0.3760 0.2654 0.6030 | 0.4245 item7 | 0.0666 0.1292 0.7335 | 0.4409 item8 | 0.0704 0.1930 0.6786 | 0.4974 item9 | 0.2469 0.7492 0.0976 | 0.3682 item10 | 0.2240 0.6940 0.1791 | 0.4361 item11 | 0.1888 0.6942 0.2600 | 0.4148 item12 | 0.1335 0.7160 0.0890 | 0.4616 item13 | 0.1913 0.6936 0.0741 | 0.4768 item14 | 0.2356 0.7256 0.1413 | 0.3980 item15 | 0.2109 0.7341 0.1977 | 0.3775 item16 | 0.2359 0.7156 0.1600 | 0.4067 item17 | 0.6110 0.2288 0.3114 | 0.4774 item18 | 0.6376 0.2205 0.2727 | 0.4705 item19 | 0.6762 0.2702 0.2585 | 0.4030 item20 | 0.5789 0.2731 0.3459 | 0.4707 item21 | 0.5721 0.2248 0.3999 | 0.4622 item22 | 0.6926 0.2538 0.1527 | 0.4326 item23 | 0.7455 0.2807 0.0100 | 0.3653 item24 | 0.6239 0.2857 0.1932 | 0.4917 item25 | 0.6351 0.1946 0.2805 | 0.4800 item26 | 0.6275 0.1869 0.2896 | 0.4874 -----------------------------------------------------------

-26-

Table 5: Items of each competency

My supervisor knows the companys strengths and the strengths of the competition My supervisor analyzes the environment to exploit opportunities and detect threats that affect the business My supervisor takes into account the opportunity cost of the resources that he/she commits My supervisor monitors the actual productivity of the resources employed and controls any deviations In negotiations, my supervisor is able to win concessions without giving way on matters that are non-negotiable and without souring the relationship My supervisor is able to quickly win the trust of the parties to the negotiation My supervisor has an influential circle of friends with whom he/she shares information and contacts My supervisor tries to cultivate informal relationships with key people in his/her work environment My supervisor deals with me honestly My supervisor always tells the truth My supervisor asserts his/her opinions in a convincing way My supervisor expounds the ideas in an organized manner My supervisor gives his/her people autonomy in their job My supervisor lets me participate in the decision-making Kindness My supervisor actively searches for the well-being of his/her people My supervisor shows concern for the problems of his/her subordinates. My supervisor encourages and inspires his/her people by highlighting the importance and motivating aspects of their work My supervisor fosters a sense of responsibility and professionalism at work My supervisor bases the relationship with his/her subordinates on trust and example. My supervisor promotes improvements in his/her department My supervisor participates actively in generating new ideas for his/her work My supervisor Accepts feedback with an attitude of openness and a desire to improve My supervisor Accepts his/her responsibility for personal failures, and apologizes My supervisor Makes a habit of examining his/her own behavior My supervisor is constant and orderly in his/her work. My supervisor Finishes the tasks he/she begins, despite any difficulties that may arise

Business Vision

External Dimension Interpersonal dimension Personal Dimension

Resource Management

Negotiation

Networking

Integrity Communication Delegation

Inspiration

Initiative Humility

Discipline

-27-

Table 6: Cronbach alpha of each competency and dimension

Alpha Br 0.69 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.69 0.68 0.66 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.84 0.77 0.81 Ch 0.71 0.78 0.79 0.68 0.84 0.77 0.66 0.71 0.84 0.76 0.85 0.79 0.88 Sp 0.57 0.58 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.70 0.57 0.78 0.77 0.81 0.69 0.83 0.78 Pa 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.75 0.66 0.61 0.71 0.76 Ph 0.73 0.73 0.78 0.67 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.80 0.89 Ru 0.71 0.70 0.67 0.73 0.84 0.72 0.69 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.69 0.78 0.85 Ir Total 0.70 0.72

Factor External

Item

Business Vision Resource Managements Negotiation Networking Interpersonal Integrity Communication Delegation Kindness Inspiration Personal Initiative Humility Discipline

0.85

0.92

0.85

0.83

0.91

0.82

0.88

0.78

0.76

0.88

0.86 0.68 0.73 0.63 0.74 0.49 0.77 0.80 0.74 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.76 0.62 0.77 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.80 0.86 0.84 0.90 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.80

Table 7: Fit measurements

External 279.5 182 0.065 0.959 0.956 Interpersonal 505.1 182 0.118 0.902 0.894 Personal 620.0 311 0.089 0.931 0.930

Chi square df RMSEA CFI TLI

Table 8: Percentage of each profile of leader in each country

Strategic Empathetic Reflexive Charismatic Visionary Mentor Competent Incompetent 8.5% 19.9% 2.8% 7.1% 10.6% 7.1% 27.0% 17.0% 4.3% 14.3% 3.7% 9.3% 14.3% 8.7% 26.7% 18.6% 7.2% 10.8% 7.2% 8.1% 6.3% 12.6% 28.8% 18.9% 6.4% 6.4% 5.7% 2.8% 4.3% 8.5% 31.2% 34.8% 10.9% 7.8% 5.4% 3.9% 5.4% 7.0% 41.1% 18.6% 8.3% 7.7% 4.5% 2.6% 8.3% 8.3% 39.1% 21.2% 3.2% 11.1% 1.6% 4.8% 1.6% 12.7% 34.9% 30.2% 7.0% 11.1% 4.4% 5.5% 7.3% 9.3% 32.7% 22.7%

Brazil China Spain Pakistan Philippines Russia Ireland TOTAL

Table 9: Percentage of each profile of leader in each country

Level 0 17.0% 18.6% 18.9% 34.8% 18.6% 21.2% 30.2% 22.7% Level 1 31.2% 22.4% 25.2% 18.4% 24.0% 20.5% 15.9% 22.5% Level 2 24.8% 32.3% 27.0% 15.6% 16.3% 19.2% 19.0% 22.0% Level 3 27.0% 26.7% 28.8% 31.2% 41.1% 39.1% 34.9% 32.7%

Brazil China Spain Pakistan Philippines Russia Ireland TOTAL

-29-

Figure 1: Emotional and Social Intelligence competency map: Emotional Intelligence I. Self-Awareness 1. Emotional Self-Awareness 2. Accurate Self Assessment 3. Self Confidence Social Intelligence III. Social Awareness 10. Empathy 11. Organizational Awareness 12. Service Orientation

II. Self Management 4. Emotional Self Control 5. Transparency 6. Adaptability 7. Achievement Orientation 8. Initiative 9. Optimism

IV. Relational Management 13. Developing Others 14. Inspirational Leadership 15. Influence 16. Change Catalyst 17. Conflict Management 18. Teamwork and Collaboration

Figure 2: Multidimensional Scaling Map

-31-

Figure 3: Model structured by dimension

Business Vision Resource Management Negotiation Networking
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 Item 19 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22 Item 23 Item 24 Item 25 Item 26

External

Integrity Communication Interpersonal Delegation Kindness

Inspiration Initiative Personal Humility Discipline

-32-

Appendix 1
Boyatzis External Efficiency orientation Diagnostic use of concepts Conceptualization Perceptual objectivity 3. Social judgment skills Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly and Marks Emotional Intelligence III. Social Awareness Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation Positive Psychology Cardona and Garcia Business Vision Organizational Vision Customer orientation Resources management Negotiation Networking Communication Conflict management Charisma Delegation Coaching Team work

Interpersonal Concern with impact Use of oral presentation Use of socialized power Managing group process

IV. Relational Management Developing Others Inspirational Leadership Influence Change Catalyst Conflict Management Teamwork and Collaboration I. Self-Awareness Emotional Self-Awareness Accurate Self Assessment Self Confidence II. Self Management Emotional Self Control Transparency Adaptability Achievement Orientation Initiative Optimism

3. Humanity Love Kindness Social intelligence 4. Justice Citizenship Fairness Leadership 1. Wisdom and Knowledge Creativity, Curiosity, Openmindedness, Love of learning, Perspective 2. Courage Bravery, Persistence, Integrity, Vitality 5. Temperance Forgiveness and mercy Humility/modesty Prudence, Self regulation 6. Transcendence Appreciation of beauty and excellence, ,Gratitude, Hope Humor, Spirituality

Personal

Proactivity Self-confidence Self-control Stamina and adaptability

1. Complex problemsolving skills 2. Solution construction skills

External 1) Proactivity Initiative, Optimism Ambition 2) Personal management Time Management Information Management Stress Management Internal 1) Self- improvement Self-criticism, Selfknowledge, Learning 2) Self management Decision making, Selfcontrol, Emotional Balance Integrity

-33-

-34-