A wonderful experience with participants today.

1. Leadership in
Multicultural
Organizations
Jon P. Zurfluh
2010

2. Background
Teacher
Administrator
Traveler
Tsuruga, Japan – 1 summer
Guangzhou, China – 3 years
Shanghai, China – 7 years
Coming soon – Moscow!

3. Complexity
Heifetz & Linsky (2002)
The Dance Floor
Senge (2006)
Circles of Causality
Five useful skills:
Encouraging personal vision – shared comes from personal
Communicating and asking for support – personal vision vs.
representative of corporate vision
Visioning as an ongoing process – not a static step
Blending extrinsic and intrinsic visions – beating a
competitor vs. setting a new standard
Distinguishing positive from negative visions – not just as a
method of survival

5. Change Theory
Lewin – 3 steps (as cited in Schein, 1996)
Unfreeze
Change
Freeze
Kotter – 8 step (1996)
Establish Urgency
Guiding Coalition
Vision & Strategy
Communicating
Empowering
Short-Term Wins
Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
Anchoring Change in the Culture

6. Drive (Pink, 2009)
Autonomy
Mastery
Purpose
Remember Maslow? (Maslow, 1943)

7. Leadership – Transactional
to Transformational
Salience of collective identity in self-concept
Sense of consistency between their self-concept and
their actions on behalf of the leader and the
“collective”
Higher level of self-esteem and a greater sense of
self-worth
Similarity between their self-concept and their
perceptions of the leader
Sense of collective efficacy
Sense of meaningfulness in their work and lives

8. Idealized Influence
Provides a role model for high ethical
behavior, instills pride, gains respect
and trust.

9. Inspirational Motivation
The degree to which the leader articulates
a vision that is appealing and inspiring to
followers. Leaders challenge followers
with high standards, communicate
optimism about future goals, and provide
meaning for the task at hand.

10. Intellectual Stimulation
The degree to which the leader challenges
assumptions, takes risks and solicits
followers' ideas. Leaders with this style
stimulate and encourage creativity in their
followers. They nurture and develop
people who think independently.

11. Individualized
Consideration
The degree to which the leader attends to
each follower's needs, acts as a mentor or
coach to the follower and listens to the
follower's concerns and needs. The leader
gives empathy and support, keeps
communication open and places
challenges before the followers.

12. Full Range Model –
Bass/Avolio
(Avolio & Bass, 2004)

13. (Quinn & Spreitzer, 2006)

14. Personality Traits Study
Extraversion2 – the tendency to be outgoing, assertive,
active, and excitement seeking
Agreeableness1 – tendencies to be kind, gentle, trusting
and trustworthy, and warm
Conscientiousness – achievement and dependability
Emotional Adjustment – often labeled by its opposite,
Neuroticism, which is tendency to be anxious, fearful,
depressed, and moody
Openness to Experience2 – tendency to be creative,
imaginative, perceptive, and thoughtful.

15. Universality?

16. Hofstede – Cultural
Dimensions
Power Distance (PDI)
Individualism (IDV)
Masculinity (MAS)
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
Long-term Orientation (LTO)
(Hofstede & Bond, 1984)

17. Power Distance
Low characteristics
Low dependence needs
Inequality minimized
Hierarchy for convenience
Superiors accessible
All should have equal rights
Change by evolution
High characteristics
High dependence
Inequality accepted
Hierarchy needed
Superiors often inaccessible
Power holders have
privileges
Change by revolution

18. Individualism
Low characteristics
“We” consciousness
Relationships have priority
over tasks
Fulfil obligations to family,
in-group, society
Penalty implies loss of
“face” and shame
High characteristics
“I” consciousness
Private opinions
Fulfill obligations to self
Penalty implies loss of self-
respect and guilt

19. Masculinity
Low characteristics
Quality of life, serving others
Striving for consensus
Work in order to live
Small and slow are beautiful
Sympathy for the
unfortunate
Intuition
High characteristics
Performance ambition, a
need to excel
Tendency to polarise
Live in order to work
Big and fast are beautiful
Admiration for the successful
achiever
Decisiveness

20. Uncertainty Avoidance
Low characteristics
Relaxed, less stress
Hard work is not a virtue per se
Emotions not shown
Conflict and competition seen as
fair play
Acceptance of dissent
Flexibility
Less need for rules
High characteristics
Anxiety, greater stress
Inner urge to work hard
Showing of emotions
accepted
Conflict is threatening
Need for agreement
Need to avoid failure
Need for laws and rules

21. Long-Term Orientation
Low characteristics
Absolute truth
Conventional/traditional
Concern for stability
Quick results expected
High characteristics
Many truths
Pragmatic
Acceptance of Change
Perseverance

22. Example #1 – United
States
(from CultureGPS for the iPhone/iPad)

23. Example #2 - China

24. Comparing
United States China

25. Two Areas of Difference
U. S.  China
Lower Individualism
People generally center the
interest of the (in-) group over
the interest of the individual
From birth on people are
integrated into strong, cohesive
in-groups which protect them in
exchange for unquestioning
loyalty
Expect status and maturity to be
valued
Anticipate opinions to be
predetermined by the in-group
Expect priority to be put on the
relationship when starting a
business or work relation
More Long-Term Orientation
Expect people to foster virtues
oriented toward future rewards; in
particular, perseverance and thrift
Expect the main work values to
include learning, honesty,
adaptiveness, accountability, and
self-discipline
Anticipate wide social and
economic differences to be
undesirable
People accept change, relativity,
and interrelations
Anticipate pragmatic, sythesizing
thinking to be common

26. GLOBE research
(House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002)

27. Connecting the Two
Power
Distance
Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty
Avoidance
Long-Term
Orienatation
Idealized
Influence ? ? ? ? ?
Inspirational
Motivation ? ? ? ? ?
Intellectual
Consideration ? ? ? ? ?
Individualized
Consideration ? ? ? ? ?

29. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Manual and Sampler (3rd ed.). Mind
Garden, Inc.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?
Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
Hofstede, G. (2005). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1),
81-94.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using
Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership
theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10.
doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive : The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, S., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). Entering the fundamental state of leadership: A framework for the
positive transformation of self and others. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Inspiring Leaders (pp. 67-
83). London: Routledge.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Revised.). New
York: Doubleday/Currency.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness
of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3),
205-227.