Topic 7: Diversity and Leadership
Topic 7: Diversity and Leadership
Topic 7
DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP
INTRODUCTION
MINI LECTURE
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
When you are reading through these chapters, pay particular attention to the
following key points:
• The many vectors to consider when mapping any answer about culture and
gender
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
The GLOBE research suggests nine cultural values, some of which are similar to
Hoftstede (House et al., 2002):
• Uncertainty avoidance: The extent to which a culture relies on social norms and
rules to reduce unpredictability (high score indicates high tolerance for
uncertainty)
• Future orientation: The extent to which a culture invests in the future rather than
in the present or past
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.
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
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
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.
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?
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
from diverse groups and cultures are welcome is an ethical and moral obligation in
the global environment, and it is a sound business practice.
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?
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.
• Understand how gender issues have been studied and the limitations of
this research.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
Culture Clusters
The cultural value dimensions are moderately intercorrelated, and examining
differences for a single value dimension without controlling for the others makes it
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).
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
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).
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).
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.
Key Terms
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.
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).
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE
Reflection
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).
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.
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
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.
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?
DISCUSSION ACTIVITY
After reading the case study, discuss the questions that follow it in the discussion
forum.
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.
• 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.
TOPIC SUMMARY
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.