LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES AND CULTURAL VALUES IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND COMPARED: AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON GLOBE DATA

Transcription

1 LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES AND CULTURAL VALUES IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND COMPARED: AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON GLOBE DATA ABSTRACT Neal M. Ashkanasy Edwin Trevor-Roberts Jeffrey Kennedy This paper reports a comparative study of Australian and New Zealand leadership attributes, based on the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness program. Responses from 344 Australian managers and 184 New Zealand managers in three industries were analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported some of the etic leadership dimensions identified in the GLOBE study, but also found some emic dimensions of leadership for each country. An interesting finding of the study was that the New Zealand data fitted the Australian model, but not vice versa, suggesting asymmetric perceptions of leadership in the two countries. INTRODUCTION This study presents a comparison of leadership in Australia and New Zealand. Perceptions of effective leadership in the two countries were interpreted within the context of their respective societal culture, operationalized in two ways: (1) the values of a society described in terms of what they should be, and (2) the behaviours of a society expressed in terms of what is or as is. This research is part of the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) project (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson, Gupta, & 170 country co-investigators 1999). In the 64-nation GLOBE project, House and his colleagues (House et al. 1999) found eighteen leader attributes which are summarized in four Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theories (CLTs), as shown in Table 1. Table 1. GLOBE Leadership Scales and CLTs Charismatic/ Value Based Narcissistic/Non- Participative Humane Charismatic Autocratic Equanimity Collectivism Bureaucratic Humane-orientation Decisive Face saver Diplomatic Procedural Inspirational Self-centred Integrity Status conscious Performance Visionary Autonomous Individualism: Autonomous, Independent, Individualistic, Unique Neal M. Ashkanasy (enquiries regarding this article can be directed to n.ashkanasy@gsm.uq.edu.au) Graduate School of Management, Brisbane, Australia; Edwin Trevor-Roberts, Graduate School of Management, Brisbane, Australia; and Jeffrey Kennedy, Commerce Department, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 2 (3), ISSN Neal M Ashkanasy, Edwin Trevor-Roberts, Jeffrey Kennedy

2 Leadership Attributes & Cultural Values Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, Kennedy In summary, the GLOBE results in respect of the four second-order dimensions, Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative, were found to be the most broadly applicable etic dimensions of leadership. We thus expected to find that these dimensions would be identifiable in both the Australian and New Zealand data. In addition, however, we also expected to be able to identify emic dimensions of leadership unique to each culture. METHOD A combined etic-emic approach was used in this study to compare the Australian and New Zealand data, collected using questionnaires developed previously in the GLOBE project. Companies were chosen at random from: finance and telecommunications industries in Australia; and finance, telecommunications, and food processing industries in New Zealand. Human resource managers were asked to distribute the questionnaires to middle managers, who completed the forms and returned them to the research team. In Australia, 344 responses were obtained from 15 companies. In New Zealand, 184 responses came from 36 companies. The methods are described in more detail in House et al. (1999). RESULTS The appropriateness of imposing the GLOBE leadership model on Australia and New Zealand data was investigated and a comparison made of leadership between the two nations, based on the data. A series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were undertaken to test these relationships. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) An exploratory factor analysis, using the maximum likelihood estimation procedure and Varimax rotation, was used to identify the constructs underlying the leadership attributes. Results were: Australia: Five factors emerged: Visionary, Mateship, Bureaucratic, Narcissistic, and Individualism. New Zealand: Five factors emerged: Team Leader, Inspirational, Narcissistic, Bureaucratic, and Internal Autonomy. In summary, the authors expected to find the evidence of etic Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative dimensions. This was supported in both data sets. These dimensions were manifested differently in each culture, however. Further, unique emic dimensions of leadership emerged. In Australia they were Mateship, Egalitarianism, and Individualism. In New Zealand they were Egalitarian Team Leader, Bureaucratic, and Internal Autonomy. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) We conducted the confirmatory factor analysis in four stages: (1) CFA of etic leadership attributes; (2) Australian emic structure; (3) New Zealand emic structure; and (4) mixed etic-emic model. 38

3 International Journal of Organisational Behaviour Volume 2, No Stage 1. In this stage, we aimed to determine whether the GLOBE etic leadership structure applied to both sets of data. The GLOBE etic model, based on the eighteen leader attributes, was then imposed on the Australian and New Zealand data, and simultaneously on both samples using a stacked model (Hayduk 1987). The fit indices for a stacked model combining both countries data provided a poor fit, Chi square (258) = 2134, CFI = 0.540, RMSEA = The lack of fit indicates that a better model exists to explain the data. Nevertheless, the etic model represented the New Zealand data more adequately than the Australian data, but the poor fit for the stacked model suggests that etic model does not provide a generalizable model of the combined data. Stage 2: The aim of this stage was to determine the fit of the emic model of leadership identified in the exploratory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the Australian data using this model but the fit was poor, Chi-square (124) = 1727, CFI =.458, RMSEA =.194. Subsequent analyses indicated that modifications to the model would improve the fit. The resulting model fit statistics were much better, delta Chi-square (49) = , p<.01, and all the parameter estimates were significant. We, therefore, adopted the modified model in the remaining analyses. The adopted Australian emic leadership structure was then imposed using a multi-sample analysis on both the Australian and New Zealand data. The fit indices show an acceptable fit: Chi-square (150) = 442, CFI =.871, RMSEA =.061, indicating that the Australian leadership model was generalizable across both samples. This suggests that the leadership model perceived to be effective in Australia would also be perceived to be effective in New Zealand. Stage 3: In this stage, we aimed to determine the fit of the New Zealand emic leadership model. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the New Zealand data using this model. The model was then modified to obtain an acceptable fit, and the final model stacked on both the New Zealand and Australian data, Chi-square (176) = 1413, CFI =.656, RMSEA =.116. Similar to the Australian solution, the initial model was a relatively poor fit of the New Zealand data. Therefore, modifications were made that resulted in a significantly better model, delta Chi-square (30) = , p<.01. The final New Zealand emic leadership model was then run using a multi-sample analysis on both the New Zealand and Australian data. The fit indices still did not indicate a good fit, suggesting that the New Zealand emic leadership model does not provide a generalizable model of the combined data. This suggests that the leadership style perceived to be effective in New Zealand is not seen to be effective in Australia. Stage 4. In this stage, we examined a mixed etic-emic leadership structure. The second-order leadership factors of Charismatic/Value Based, Narcissistic/Non-Participative were universally endorsed by the GLOBE project as contributing to, or impeding, a leader s effectiveness (House et al. 1997). We anticipated that these two dimensions would emerge in both the Australian and New Zealand data. The exploratory factor analyses of Stage 2 identified two emic dimensions in each country which had similar attribute loadings to the etic dimensions (Visionary and Narcissistic in Australia) and (Inspirational and Narcissistic in New Zealand). They were also supported in the confirmatory factor analyses. 39

4 Leadership Attributes & Cultural Values Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, Kennedy The following statistical procedure was used to further justify the existence of these dimensions. The initial and final emic leadership models for each data set identified in Stages 2 and 3 were respecified to have their emic Visionary/Inspirational and Narcissistic factors replaced by the etic GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative dimensions. Any attribute loadings on the emic Visionary/Inspirational and Narcissistic factors, which did not correspond with the equivalent etic dimension, were removed to emphasize the etic dimension. The etic GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative factors were imposed on the Australian and New Zealand emic solutions to test whether these dimensions existed at the emic level. Results of the confirmatory factor analyses of these models for Australia are: Chi-square (101) = 390, CFI = 0.823, RMSEA=0.125 and for New Zealand: Chi-square (82) = , CFI = 0.773, RMSEA= Imposing the etic Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative dimensions on the initial emic solutions significantly improved the fit of the model for both the Australian and New Zealand data. In contrast, imposing these etic dimensions on the final emic models of both countries reduced the fit of these models. Considering how highly constrained these models were, these results indicate quite a good fit, suggesting that the etic dimensions do exist in each country. One reason for the poorer fit on the final models is that scales dropped in Stages 2 and 3 (which were not well specified by the data) were added back to the models as part etic dimensions. Imposing the etic GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative dimensions on the emic leadership models resulted in a degraded fit, with the fit indices slightly below the cut-off level. The performance of such a highly constrained model however, was surprisingly good, suggesting that the etic Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative factors are congruent with the emic Visionary/Inspirational and Narcissistic dimensions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The findings show that the perception of effective leadership differs between cultures. They also support the notion of universal leadership dimensions applicable across cultures. Etic Leadership Dimensions The Visionary/Inspirational and Narcissistic emic dimensions emerging from the Australian and New Zealand data were similar to the etic dimensions. These results are consistent with Berry s (1969) combined etic-emic framework whereby emic descriptions are used to modify the etic dimensions. The etic dimensions of Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non- Participative seem to be manifested differently depending on the culture (House & Aditya 1997). For example, the emic Visionary/Inspirational dimension (similar to the etic Charismatic/Value Based dimension) had different loadings in each culture. The New Zealand respondents reported a more Inspirational or Motivational dimension, whereas the Australian factor was characterised by high loadings from the Visionary, Decisive, and Performanceorientated scales. This indicates that New Zealanders perceive a Visionary/Inspirational leader to be inspiring and motivating, whereas Australians see a charismatic leader to look to the future and to get things done. 40

5 International Journal of Organisational Behaviour Volume 2, No Charisma did not load highly on the Australian Visionary, or the New Zealand Inspirational factor. This indicates that the display of charisma by a leader is not perceived to contribute to his or her effectiveness in these countries. Also, the etic GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based dimension was renamed Visionary/Inspirational to reflect the emic manifestation of this dimension and can be viewed as a derived etic (House & Aditya 1997). In summary, the Australian and New Zealand data support the existence of the universal Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative leadership dimensions. This was demonstrated in the mixed etic-emic model of Stage 4. Despite being highly constrained, it yielded a good fit, demonstrating the universality of these leadership dimensions. The behaviours constituting these dimensions, however, have been shown to differ between cultures. This suggests universal leadership dimensions are emically interpreted. Emic Leadership Dimensions Two similar dimensions emerged in Australia and New Zealand. The first of these was an Egalitarianism/Bureaucrat leadership dimension, representing a general working ethos. It emphasises support of rules and authority, while being conscious of status and modest about one s achievements. This factor essentially relates to the ability of a leader to be a manager and supports the notion of equality as a bureaucratic style of leadership, and emphasizes the equal distribution of power through the use of rules and regulations. The difference between the Australian Egalitarianism and the New Zealand Bureaucrat dimensions is that the Procedural scale does not load significantly on the New Zealand factor, as it does on the Australian factor. The confirmatory factor analysis of the New Zealand data, however, suggested that a Procedural loading be added. The second leadership dimension that emerged in both countries is Individualism in Australia, and Internal Autonomy in New Zealand. This suggests that uniqueness and individualism contributes to a leader s effectiveness. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Australian data suggested that a loading of the Bureaucratic scale be added to this dimension. This loading suggests that an effective leader should be an individual within the constraints of social and/or business procedures and rules. The respecification of the New Zealand emic model indicated that a loading of Humane-orientation be added to this factor. This suggests the individualism of a New Zealand leader may need to include generosity and compassion. The loadings on this individualism dimension were the same in both cultures, except that the Charisma scale loaded on the Australian Individualism factor and not the New Zealand factor. Ashkanasy and Falkus (expected publication 2001) reported that Australian leaders rarely display Charisma, but can be tough and aggressive if the situation arises. This could explain the loading of Charisma on the Australian Individualism factor and not the Visionary factor, since the display of charisma and individualism may occur together. This supports the notion of the Australian enigma (Ashkanasy & Falkus, expected publication 2001) where equality is important, as is the ability for a person to express their individualism. That is, leaders need to balance a need for achievement with the maintenance of equality. Though not very strong, the loading of Charisma on the Australian Individualism scale highlights a difference between Australian and New Zealand leadership. The results indicate that, in New Zealand, Individualism is perceived to contribute to a leader s effectiveness, but 41

6 Leadership Attributes & Cultural Values Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, Kennedy the display of Charisma does not. On the other hand, Australian respondents perceive a leader who demonstrates Individualism, as well as a moderate amount of Charisma, as effective. A leadership dimension also emerged from the Australian and New Zealand data that was unique to each country. The Australian dimension of Mateship represents a leadership style that focuses on the group. It is being one of the boys which characterises the Australian culture (Ashkanasy & Falkus, expected publication 2001). Interestingly, a significant loading from the Integrity scale suggests that a leader must be trustworthy and honest and that their focus on the group be sincere. A loading of Decisive from the confirmatory factor analysis indicates that a leader needs to be decisive in a group situation. The unique leadership factor that emerged from the New Zealand solution is entitled Egalitarian Team Leader. It is similar to the Australian Mateship dimension, except that the emphasis is more on a working team. This is because of the high loadings on the Procedural and Diplomatic scales. Interestingly, Charisma had its highest loading (.31) on this factor. This suggests that a moderate display of Charisma is acceptable in group situations, as opposed to Australian respondents who indicated that a more individualistic Charisma is considered to contribute to a leader s effectiveness. The focus of this Egalitarian Team Leader factor is more on the pragmatic issues of getting the job done. This is supported, in comparison to the Australian results, by the overall low loading of the Visionary dimension. Our confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the Procedural scale be added to this factor, which appears to testify to the importance of being administratively skilled. The New Zealand Egalitarian Team Leader and the Australian Mateship dimensions highlight a major difference in leadership style between these two nations. Australians seem to have a more social or affiliative approach to leadership as captured by the Mateship dimension. This is contrasted with the New Zealand approach that seems to emphasise a more outcomeorientated team spirit as highlighted in the Egalitarian Team Leader dimension. The emic factors that emerged from the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are speculative results only, however. Further research is needed to understand and to confirm the emic factors that emerged. Although the final models in the confirmatory factor analysis yielded relatively good fits, this does not mean that this model is the only model that fits the data (Jereskög, 1993). There potentially may be numerous other models that also demonstrate acceptable fit. Asymmetry of Australian and New Zealand Leadership Imposing the Australian emic model on New Zealand, through a multi-sample analysis, resulted in a significantly better fit than imposing the New Zealand model on Australia. This result suggests that New Zealanders are better able to understand the Australian leadership style than Australians understand New Zealanders. A possible reason for this result is that, in terms of the two countries, the Australian culture is more dominant. It appears that New Zealanders are more familiar with Australian culture and leadership style than Australians are of New Zealand culture and leadership. Implications for Theory and Practice In terms of theory implications, an analytical framework for comparing cultures using a pre-defined set of constructs, which includes the ability to compare different models, has been 42

7 International Journal of Organisational Behaviour Volume 2, No presented. The existence of etic leadership dimensions, as well as etic constructs being emically manifested, is also supported (House & Aditya 1997; Triandis 1972). Related to practice, leaders need to be aware of the effects of certain leadership styles on their effectiveness, taking into account those specific behaviours whose dimensions are manifested in different countries. Our results also suggest that it is easier for a leader from a less dominant regional culture such as New Zealand to adapt to a more dominant regional culture such as Australia. CONCLUSION This research supports the leadership theory proposed by House et al. (1997). The existence of different leadership dimensions at the emic level suggests that leadership is interpreted differently in different cultures (House et al. 1997; Lord & Maher 1993). The results of this study also underline the importance of considering both etic and emic dimensions of leadership. Further research needs to be done to define the unique emic dimensions of leadership that emerged from the Australian and New Zealand data, and to understand further how the etic Charismatic/Value Based and Narcissistic/Non-Participative dimensions are manifested. This study has underlined the difficulty in doing cross-cultural research, in that both etic and emic constructs need to be considered. Though the statistical procedure used provides a framework to address the etic-emic issue, there is scope for further research into the use of advanced statistical procedures to overcome this problem. Finally, we reiterate that we have uncovered evidence of the existence of etic and emic leadership dimensions. It shows that culture impacts on the perceived effectiveness of a leader. Australia and New Zealand have similar Anglo-centric cultures, but the perception of what constitutes an effective leader differs in each country. REFERENCES Ashkanasy, N.A. & Falkus, S. (expected publication in 2001), The Australian Enigma, chapter to be included in the first GLOBE Anthology. Berry, J.W. 1969, On Cross-cultural Compatibility, International Journal of Psychology, 4, Hayduk, L. A. 1987, Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta, V. & 170 Country Co-investigators 1999, Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE, in W. Mobley, J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (eds.), Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 1, , JAI Press, Stamford, CN. House, R.J. & Aditya, R.N. 1997, The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?, Journal of Management, 23(3),

8 Leadership Attributes & Cultural Values Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, Kennedy Jereskög, K.G. 1993, Testing Structural Equation Models, in K.A Bollen & J.S. Long (eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, California. Lord, R. & Maher, K. 1993, Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance, Routledge, USA. Triandis, H.C. 1972, The Analysis of Subjective Culture, McGraw Hill, New York. 44