By Gerald A. Daquila, Ph.D. (Candidate)
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
“Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.”
— Prof. Geert Hofstede, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University
A leader’s cross-cultural leadership is rising in importance in a shrinking global economy. Leadership is about influence. A leader is as effective only as he’s able to convince those whom he leads. It is essentially ‘selling’ the leader’s point of view from the perspective of the receiver/follower (Cialdini, 1984), while at the same time, being conscious that the leader is not undermining the follower’s integrity (Forward, 1997).
Navigating through this terrain requires that the leader be self-aware (Goleman, 1998), and considerate of the other person’s worldview, cosmology or Weltanschauung. Conflict arises because in a multicultural society, multiple worldviews are competing with each other, none of which is necessarily better than the other. As a leader, acute awareness that a person’s cosmology is different from yours is key to getting the team behind your idea.
Worldview. Every person has a concept of himself in relation to the world (Freud, 1936). It is this self-concept that enables him to make sense of all life experiences, people, and events. To a person, this worldview makes absolute sense. “Happiness or joy,” says Nathaniel Branden, “is the emotional state that proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. Suffering is the emotional state that proceeds from a negation or destruction of one’s values” (Branden, 1969).
When another person presents a cosmology that’s different from one’s own, it can be unsettling and will be perceived as a threat to one’s fragile ego. Our reflexive response is to create barriers to protect this worldview; hence, people find it difficult to change. Anna Freud calls this our built-in ‘defense mechanisms’ (Freud, 1936). A leader’s first challenge, therefore, is to bring about a common understanding of the situation, knowing that the people around him see through the situation the same way as he does. A leader who is unaware of the subtle differences in culture, demographics, and other dimensions of diversity will be unable to lead others, will face resistance or outright conflict.
Self-awareness. Cross-cultural awareness starts with self-awareness. How one person’s cultural lenses shaped one’s view of the world—early experiences within the family structure, school, church and work; including interactions within the immediate community, and the broader geographic area sharing a common language or sub-culture. This ‘map’ of the external world develops during the lifetime of the individual and becomes that person’s ‘frame of reference’ with the outside world. The key to effective leadership in a multi-cultural environment, therefore, is having a keen understanding of one’s viewpoint, and being aware that this viewpoint may not necessarily be shared by those with whom you’re leading.
How cultures differ. Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist and anthropologist developed the cultural dimension theory to understand how individuals differ. According to Hofstede, a person’s cosmology is influenced by the following six dimensions: (1) power distance index, (2) individualism vs. collectivism, (3) uncertainty avoidance index, (4) masculinity vs. femininity, (5) long-term vs. short-term orientation, and (6) indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, 2001).
Power distance is the degree of acceptance of power imbalance that exist in any group. It refers to one’s attitude on how those power differences are distributed amongst the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ to maintain social harmony. For example, in cultures which rated high in power distance, such as most Asian countries, team members expect their leaders to be paternalistic and authoritarian. In contrast, the US where power distance is low, team members expect their leaders to treat them as equals.
Individualism versus collectivism is the cultural leaning to form alliances or keep one’s autonomy. Individualist societies, such as descendants of the Anglo-Saxons (e.g., UK, US, Canada) tend to value independence, and would seek status and recognition for their efforts. Collectivist societies, on the other hand, such as East Asians, Middle Eastern, and some Latin American countries, prefer to identify themselves with their group or ethnic background. They are uncomfortable being recognized for their individual contributions and would prefer to share this reward with their groups.
Uncertainty avoidance. Countries that rated high on uncertainty avoidance, such as Germany and Japan prefer things to be predictable. In work settings, Germans won’t settle for anything less than a detailed plan of action. They tend to be conscientious, good project planners and strategists. The US, which has low uncertainty avoidance, in contrast, would be risk-lovers and innovators. It’s no accident that the US remains to be one of the most technologically innovative economies in the world, ranking 6th in patents per capita. Sweden, another low uncertainty avoidance country, ranked highest in innovation (Badenhausen, 2011).
Masculinity versus femininity refers to contrasting qualities of assertiveness and nurturing. High masculinity countries such as Japan, Germany, Hungary, Austria and Switzerland, tend to prefer authoritarian or directive styles of leadership, whereas the Nordic countries of Norway and Sweden, scoring low on masculinity, tend to be more egalitarian and democratic in their leadership styles.
The long- or short-term orientation refers to a person’s view of time. In China, as well as most Asian countries, people view time as circular rather than linear. Their long-term time horizons span generations, in contrast to the West where the preference is for the here and now. This is most apparent in the way one conducts business. A westerner, who is short-term oriented, would find the long winded introductions by Asians, Middle Eastern and some Latin American cultures a waste of one’s time.
Finally, restraint or indulgent behavior preferences refer to hedonistic desires and how those are manifested. Western societies tend to be more indulgent in that respect, whereas most Asian and Middle Eastern countries prefer to hide or control these impulses. For example, public displays of affection are frowned upon in Asia and Middle East, but perfectly acceptable in Anglo-Saxon countries.
Inter-generational diversity. We live at a time when there are four generations working for organizations: (1) the Silent Generation, born between 1925-1942; (2) Baby Boomers, born between 1943-1964; (3) Gen X, from 1965-1978 (Conger, 1998); and (4) Gen Y, those born between 1979-1994 (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009). Because the shaping events in these generations’ lives all differ, all four cohorts have different ways of ‘seeing’ their world, and they all make sense to them. Unless the leader is adroit enough to know these differences, this inter-generational diversity is yet another dimension that needs masterful handling.
Pervasiveness of teams. Teams are becoming increasingly the organizing unit in organizations today. Team building and team facilitation skills are requisite skills that a 21st century leader needs to master. It is the ability to facilitate a team’s process from forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965). A team is as effective only as its weakest member. One of the unwritten job descriptions of future leaders is the ability to ‘coach’ members in the team, to help each member discover his/her potential. Every problem encountered is a teaching moment, and it takes an intuitive leader to capitalize on these moments to bring about lessons on team core values, and group dynamics.
Change management. Once a common ground has been carved between the leader and the led, the leader’s next task is being able to lead the group to the higher ground, a task naturally well-suited for a transformational type of leader. This requires not only change management skills, but also, large doses of emotional intelligence (EQ) and cultural intelligence, CQ (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a wide scale change management technique first developed by David Cooperrider at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management (Cooperrider, 2007). Appreciative Inquiry uses a ‘strengths-based’ approach to introduce change and highlights the positive aspects of peak performance. By focusing on these positive qualities, members are able to generate their own energy, which then feeds into a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle. The method has commonalities with other management theories such as Positive Psychology (Seligman, 1991), and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, NLP (Grinder, & Bandier 1979).
Canadian experience. Canada may perhaps provide us with a working model of how multiculturalism works in the real world. The country’s culture is influenced by its vast landscape covering six time zones (Cole & Berengut, 2009). Historically, there are three distinct cultures that overlap: First Nations, French, and Anglo-Saxon.
Amidst this vast land mass, pockets of communities grew out of thirteen provinces/territories. In between these communities lay flatlands and towering mountain ranges that provide natural barriers. The Canadian Pacific Rail and Trans Canada Highway connect the east and west coasts, facilitating both tourism and trade. In addition to the main cultures, there has been a growing number of Chinese, East Indian and Southeast Asian immigrants, which together comprise 9% of the 34 million population (Statistics Canada, 2011).
With this diversity, one would surmise that Canada is a hotspot for conflict, but it is not the case (Cole, & Berengut, 2009). According to Bass who studied cross-cultural leadership across many countries, “an ideal leadership style includes elements of transformational leaders” (Bass, 1997). This style includes an ‘inspirational’ motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and consideration for individual circumstances.
This pragmatic, contingent leadership style, displayed through a unique combination of skills that accommodate individual autonomy and collective responsibility, socialized power, and transformational, rather than transactional or charismatic leadership style, makes the Canadian model in a league of its own.
Canadian leaders, according to Olijnyk & Gagne (2006), are a hot commodity because they embody the ‘transformational’ leaders’ characteristics of inclusion, process skills, negotiation and consensus building (Henein & Morissette, 2007). David Suzuki, a retired Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental champion, once said: “I believe in the power of reason to alter human behavior.”
Finally, given the various dimensions of culture and inter-generational differences, leadership success will depend increasingly on managing this diversity, of finding the balance between competing worldviews within a team structure. Successful leaders in the future will have transformational qualities of visionary, inclusive style of management; ability to balance the individual as well as the collective aspirations; the intellectual gravitas and strength of character. Contemporary writer, Malcolm Gladwell, summed this well: “Innovation—the heart of the knowledge economy—is fundamentally social.”
References.
Badenhausen, Kurt (2011). The best countries for business. Forbes, October 3, 2011. Retrieved at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/03/the-best-countries-for-business/
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.
Branden, Nathaniel (1969). The Psychology of Self-Esteem.
Cialdini, Robert (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.
Cole, Nina D., & Berengut, Rhona G. (2009). Cultural mythology and global leadership in Canada. Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership. Edited by Kessler, Eric H. & Wong-MingJi, Diana J., I (2), 49-64. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.
Conger, Jay A. (1998). How ‘Gen X’ Managers Manage. Retrieved from: http://www.strategy-business.com
Cooperrider, David L. (2007). Business as an agent of world benefit: Awe is what moves us forward. Retrieved from http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/
Earley, Christopher, & Ang Soon (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures. Stanford University.
Forward, Susan (1997). Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You.
Freud, Anna (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense.
Goleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence.
Grinder, John, & Bandler, Richard (1979). Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming. Moab, UT: Real People Press. ISBN 0-911226-19-2.
Henein, A. & Morissette, F. (2007). Made in Canada Leadership: Wisdom from the
Nation’s Best and Brightest on the Art and Practice of Leadership. Toronto: Jossey-Bass.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann; Sherbin, Laura; and Sumberg, Karen (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers Will Reshape Your Agenda. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780803973237.
Olijnyk, Z. & Gagne, C. (2006). Taking on the world. Canadian Business, 20 November–3 December, 42.
Seligman, Martin E. P. (1991). Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-671-01911-2 (Paperback reprint edition, Penguin Books, 1998; reissue edition, Free Press, 1998)
Statistics Canada (2011). Retrieved www.statcan.gc.ca
Tuckman, Bruce (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63(6), 389-399. doi: 10.1037/h0022100.
Life.Understood. 