Presentation on theme: "INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP: Key Concepts for International Researchers Iván C. Balán, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry) Columbia."— Presentation transcript:
INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP: Key Concepts for International Researchers Iván C. Balán, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry) Columbia University Adjunct Faculty Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy The New School
Research & Leadership RESEARCH RESEARCHER - Recruitment -Data Collection -Assessments -Intervention -Data Analysis -Publications -Dissemination -Implementation LEADER -Leader vs. boss -Inspire -Motivating -Team Cohesion -Team Engagement -Retain Talent -Organizational Change
Levels of Cultural Difference Individual Team Professional Discipline Organizational Culture National Culture
Goals of the presentation Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting research Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of research, through: –leadership styles –team cohesion –motivation and commitment Discuss the development of intercultural competency
The GLOBE Study House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House, R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies
Leadership Defined “The ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (the GLOBE Study)
GLOBE Overview Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Science Foundation Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review Over 150 Co-investigators Requirements for participation Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food processing, telecommunications) multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization respondents had to be middle managers
Some key questions Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational practices that are accepted and effective across cultures? How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational practices that are accepted and effective? What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to leadership and organizational practices? What is the relative standing of each of the cultures studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?
Data Collection Qualitative Quantitative –Societal and Organizational Culture Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be The economic system in this society is designed to maximize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 individual interests collective interests –Leadership Questionnaire
GLOBE Participants 17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251 More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants 74% of respondents were men Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years 51% had worked for a multinational corporation
Performance Orientation Higher Performance OrientationLower Performance Orientation Value training and developmentValue societal and family relationships Emphasize results more than peopleEmphasize loyalty and belonging Reward performanceHave high respect for quality of life Value and reward individual achievementEmphasize seniority and experience Feedback as necessary for improvementFeedback as judgmental and discomforting Value being direct, explicit, and to the point in communications Value ambiguity and subtlety in language and communications Value what you do more than who you areValue who you are more than what you do Have a sense of urgencyHave a low sense of urgency The extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Performance Orientation BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3 Switzerland4.94Egypt4.27Namibia3.67 Singapore4.90Germany (W)4.25Argentina3.65 Hong Kong4.80India4.25Bolivia3.61 S. Africa (B)4.66Zimbabwe4.24Portugal3.60 Iran4.58Japan4.22Italy3.58 South Korea4.55S. Africa (W)4.11Qatar3.45 Canada (Eng)4.49Mexico4.10Russia3.39 USA4.49Brazil4.04Venezuela3.32 China4.45Spain4.01Greece3.20 Austria4.44Morocco3.99 Australia4.36Nigeria3.92 Netherlands4.32Turkey3.83 Sweden3.72 El Salvador3.72
Future Orientation Higher Future OrientationLower Future Orientation Have a propensity to save for the futureHave a propensity to spend now rather than save for the future Have individuals who are more intrinsically motivated Have individuals who are less intrinsically motivated Have organizations with a longer strategic orientation Have organizations with shorter strategic orientation Value the deferment of gratification, placing greater value on long term success Value instant gratification and place higher priorities on immediate rewards Emphasize visionary leadership that can see patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty Emphasize leadership that focuses on repetition of reproducible and routine sequences The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future- oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Future Orientation BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3BAND 4 Singapore5.07Sweden4.39Zimbabwe3.77Poland3.11 Switzerland4.73Japan4.29China3.75Argentina3.08 S. Africa (B)4.64India4.19Iran3.70Russia2.88 Netherlands4.61U.S.4.15Zambia3.62 Austria4.46S. Africa (W)4.13Costa Rica3.60 Denmark4.44Nigeria4.09Namibia3.49 Canada (Eng)4.44Hong Kong4.03Thailand3.43 South Korea3.97Kuwait3.26 Germany (W)3.95Morocco3.26 Mexico3.87Italy3.25 Israel3.85Guatemala3.24 Brazil3.81Hungary3.21
Gender Egalitarianism More EgalitarianLess Egalitarian Have more women in positions of authorityHave fewer women in positions of authority Accord women a higher status in societyAccord women a lower status in society Afford women a greater role in community decision making Afford women no or a smaller role in community decision making Have higher percentage of women in the labor force Have lower percentage of women in the labor force Have less occupational sex segregationHave more occupational sex segregation Have higher female literacy ratesHave lower female literacy rates Have similar levels of education of females and males Have lower levels of education of females relative to males The degree to which the differentiation between male and female roles is stressed.
Gender Egalitarianism BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3 Hungary4.08Switzerland3.42Kuwait2.58 Russia4.07Australia3.40South Korea2.50 Denmark3.93U.S.3.34 Namibia3.88Brazil3.31 Singapore3.70S. Africa (W)3.27 Colombia3.67Japan3.19 England3.67Taiwan3.18 S. Africa (B)3.66Germany (E)3.06 France3.64China3.05 Mexico3.64Zimbabwe3.04 Venezuela3.62Nigeria3.01 Malaysia3.51India2.90 Argentina3.49Zambia2.86 Hong Kong3.47Morocco2.84
Assertiveness High AssertivenessLow Assertiveness Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior for everyone in society View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and value modesty and tenderness Have sympathy for the strongHave sympathy for the weak Value competitionValue cooperation Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard enough Associate competition with defeat and punishment Value direct and unambiguous communicationSpeak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving” Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and feelings Value detached and self-possessed conduct Stress equity, competition, and performanceStress equality, solidarity, and quality of life Try to have control over the environmentValue harmony with the environment Value taking initiativeEmphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
Assertiveness BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3 Albania4.89France4.13Switzerland (FR)3.47 Nigeria4.79Ecuador4.09New Zealand3.42 Germany (E)4.73Zambia4.07Sweden3.38 S. Africa (W)4.60Italy4.07 U.S.4.55Ireland3.92 Morocco4.52Namibia3.91 Mexico4.45Guatemala3.89 Spain4.42Indonesia3.86 S. Africa (B)4.36Denmark3.80 Australia4.28China3.76 Argentina4.22India3.73 Brazil4.20Russia3.68 Singapore4.17Thailand3.64 England4.15Japan3.59
In-group Collectivism CollectivismIndividualism Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive groups Individuals look after themselves and their immediate families The self is viewed as interdependent with groupsThe self is viewed as autonomous and independent of groups Group goals take the precedence over individual goals Individual goals take precedence over group goals More extended family structuresMore nuclear family structures People emphasize relatedness with groupsPeople emphasize rationality Communication is indirectCommunication is direct Individuals are likely to engage in group activitiesIndividuals are likely to engage in activities alone Individuals make greater distinctions between in- groups and out-groups Individuals make fewer distinctions between in- groups and out-groups The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and interdependence in their families
In-group Collectivism BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3 Philippines6.36Costa Rica5.32Canada (E)4.26 Iran6.03Greece5.27U.S.4.25 India5.92Brazil5.18Australia4.17 Morocco5.87Ireland5.14England4.08 Zambia5.84S. Africa (B)5.09Finland4.07 China5.80Austria4.85Germany (W)4.02 Colombia5.73Israel4.70Switzerland3.97 Singapore5.64Japan4.63Netherlands3.70 Russia5.63Namibia4.52New Zealand3.67 Zimbabwe5.57Germany (E)4.52Sweden3.66 Nigeria5.55S. Africa (W)4.50Denmark3.53 Venezuela5.53France4.37 Argentina5.51 Slovenia5.43
Institutional Collectivism CollectivismIndividualism Members assume high interdependence with the organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill their organizational obligations Members assume they are independent of the organization ; believe it is important for them to bring their unique skills and abilities to the organization Organizations take responsibility for employee welfare Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees perform, not their personal or family welfare Important decisions are made by groupsImportant decisions are made by individuals Selection can focus on relational attributes of employees Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge, skills, and abilities Motivation is socially oriented and based on commitment to the group Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s needs, interests, and capacity Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and accommodating to resolve conflict Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict resolution Accountability for organizational successes and failures rests with groups Accountability for organizational successes and failures tests with individuals The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level encourage and reward collective action
Institutional Collectivism BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3 Sweden5.22Indonesia4.54Portugal3.92 South Korea5.20Poland4.53Ecuador3.90 Japan5.19Russia4.50Morocco3.87 Singapore4.90Israel4.46Spain3.85 New Zealand4.81Netherlands4.46Brazil3.83 Denmark4.80S. Africa (B)4.39Germany (W)3.79 China4.77Canada (E)4.38Italy3.68 Ireland4.63India4.38Argentina3.66 S. Africa (W)4.62U.S.4.20Germany (E)3.56 Zambia4.61Nigeria4.14Hungary3.53 Malaysia4.61Namibia4.13 Taiwan4.59Zimbabwe4.12 Mexico4.06 France 3.93
Power Distance High Power DistanceLow Power Distance Society differentiated into classes on several criteria Society has a large middle class Power is seen as providing social order, relational harmony, and role stability Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion, and dominance. Limited upward social mobilityHigh upward social mobility Information is localizedInformation is shared Different groups have different involvement and democracy does not ensure equal opportunity All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy ensures parity in opportunities and development for all Civil liberties are weak and public corruption highCivil liberties are strong and public corruption low Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land ownership) Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill, knowledge) The degree to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges
Power Distance BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3BAND 4 Morocco5.80Germany (W)5.25Qatar4.73Netherlands4.11 Nigeria5.80Mexico5.22Israel4.73S. Africa (B)4.11 El Salvador5.68Taiwan5.18Albania4.62Denmark3.89 Zimbabwe5.67S. Africa (W)5.16Bolivia4.51 Argentina5.64England5.15 Thailand5.63Kuwait5.12 Germany (E)5.54Japan5.11 Russia5.52China5.04 Spain5.52Austria4.95 India5.47Egypt4.92 Iran5.43U.S.4.88 Brazil5.33Sweden4.85 Zambia5.31Canada (E)4.82 Namibia5.29Costa Rica4.74
Humane Orientation High Humane OrientationLow Humane Orientation Others are importantSelf-interest is important Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love and generosity have high priority Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have high priority Need for belonging and affiliation motivate peoplePower and material possessions motivate people People are urged to provide social support to each other People are expected to solve personal problems on their own. Children should be obedientChildren should be autonomous Members of society are responsible for promoting well-being of others: The state is not actively involved State provides social and economic support for individuals’ well-being Close circle receives material, financial, and social support, concern extends to all people and nature Lack of support for others; predominance of self- enhancement The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others.
Humane Orientation BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3BAND 4 Zambia5.23Indonesia4.69U.S.4.17Italy3.63 Philippines5.12Ecuador4.65Taiwan4.11Poland3.61 Ireland4.96India4.57Sweden4.10S. Africa (W)3.49 Malaysia4.87Kuwait4.52Nigeria4.10Singapore3.49 Thailand4.81Zimbabwe4.45Israel4.10Germany (E)3.40 Egypt4.73Costa Rica4.39Argentina3.99France3.40 China4.36Mexico3.98Hungary3.35 S. Africa (B)4.34Russia3.94Greece3.34 Japan4.30H. Kong3.90Spain3.32 Australia4.28Slovenia3.79Germany (W)3.18 Venezuela4.25Austria3.72 Morocco4.19England3.72 Georgia4.18Brazil3.66
Uncertainty Avoidance High Uncertainty AvoidanceLow Uncertainty Avoidance Tendency toward formalizing interactions with others Tendency toward being more informal in interactions with others Document agreements in legal contractsRely on word of others they trust vs. written contracts Orderly, meticulous record keepingLess concerned with orderliness Rely on formalized policies and proceduresRely on informal norms vs. formal policies Take more moderate calculated risksLess calculating when taking risks Stronger resistance to changeLess resistance to change Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behaviorLess desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less tolerance for breaking rulesGreater tolerance for rule breaking The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover situations in their daily lives.
Uncertainty Avoidance BAND 1BAND 2BAND 3BAND 4 Switzerland5.37England4.65Japan4.07Venezuela3.44 Sweden5.32S. Africa (B)4.59Egypt4.06Olivia3.35 Singapore5.31Canada4.58Israel4.06Guatemala3.30 Denmark5.22France4.43Spain3.97Hungary3.12 Germany (W)5.22Australia4.39Philippines3.89Russia2.88 Austria5.16Taiwan4.34Costa Rica3.82 Germany (E)5.16Nigeria4.29Italy3.79 Finland5.02Kuwait4.21Iran3.67 Switzerland4.98Namibia4.20Morocco3.65 China4.94Mexico4.18Argentina3.65 Malaysia4.78Zimbabwe4.15El Salvador3.62 New Zealand4.75U.S.4.15Brazil3.60 Zambia4.10South Korea3.55 S. Africa (W)4.09
Assessment of Desired Qualities 112 characteristics and behaviors –Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others –Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or contributes to effective leadership Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions
Leader Dimensions Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values. Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members. Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions. Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity. Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership. Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘
Charismatic/ Value Based Team Oriented ParticipativeHumane Oriented AutonomousSelf- Protective HIGH Anglo Germanic Nordic SE Asian L. European L. American SE Asian Confucian A. L. American E. European African L. European Nordic Anglo Middle Eastern Germanic Anglo Nordic SE Asian Anglo African Confucian A. Germanic E. European Confucian A. Nordic SE Asian Anglo African Middle Eastern L. European L. American Middle Eastern Confucian A. SE Asian L. American E. European Confucian A. African E. European L. European L. American African Germanic Middle Eastern L. American E. European African L. European Middle EasternE. European SE Asian Confucian A. Middle Eastern L. European Nordic Anglo Germanic Nordic
Intercultural Competence: The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences “The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning, communication, and human relations has been mastered.” ( Hoopes)
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Milton Bennett, Ph.D.. Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to enthnorelativism Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as to how to change “natural” behavior Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences
Experience of Difference Development of Intercultural Sensitivity Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES ETHNORELATIVE STAGES
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to all reality Similar to egocentrism Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group distinctions
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial --Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict to exist a recognition of difference has to exist People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial since non-dominant groups are often inundated with reminders they are different Two stages of Denial: –Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar –Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial-- Defense --Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural differences perceived as threatening Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific defenses are created against them Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and Reversal
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense-- Minimization -----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration The most advanced level of ethnocentrism We are all alike…they are all like me!! Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized: –“being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule” Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when interactions based on assumed similarities are not met. Two aspects to minimization: –Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die we are basically the same –Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone values capitalism
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration The assumption that cultures can only be understood relative to one another and that particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness” that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference is neither good nor bad, it is just different One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular group or individual The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening, but most likely to be enjoyable
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization----- Acceptance --Adaptation--Integration Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary and preferable human condition Two forms of development occur at this stage: –Respect for Behavioral Differences –Respect for Value Difference
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance-- Adaptation --Integration New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is adaptation and not assimilation You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into another culture when necessary then returning to yours Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills Two phases to adaptation: –Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or comprehending it from another’s perspective –Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural frames of reference.
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation-- Integration “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns different from his own and who has psychologically and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977). In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture is lost Two forms of integration exist: –Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the cultural context in which it occurs –Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality
Key Points Differences in values can affect: –Leadership styles –Approaches to work –Success of workteams –Intervention approaches –Attainment of research goals and aims Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture and function within the other culture. –what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.
Key Points Intercultural competency and effective leadership require active thinking and energy….but are essential to the successful international research.