Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Culturesunpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/... · Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Cultures IACM 2004 ... high

Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 1

Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Cultures

IACM 2004

Hein Wendt Hay Group b.v. Arnhemse Bovenweg 140, 3708 AH , Zeist, The Netherlands

Ph. +31.30.692 9951, Fax +31.30.692 9900 [email protected]

Martin C. Euwema

Dept of Social and Organizational Psychology Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Ph. +31.30.253 4198, Fax: +31.30.253 4718

[email protected]

Olena Zhytnyk Dept of Social and Organizational Psychology Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Ph. +31.30.253 4198, Fax: +31.30.253 4718

[email protected]

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Hein Wendt, Hay Group b.v., [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Leadership Styles and Team Cohesiveness Across Cultures

Abstract

The goal of this study is to clarify relationships between directive and supportive

leadership styles and team cohesiveness. Moreover, the effect of national culture on

leadership, team cohesiveness, and the moderating role of culture on the relationship

between leadership styles and team cohesiveness is examined. Data was collected

from 20,943 managers and 96,550 corresponding team members in 34 countries.

Multilevel analysis was used to test hypotheses, based on Hofstede’s dimension of

individualism–collectivism. Individualism was negatively related to the use of both

directive and supportive leadership styles. There was no relationship between

individualism and team cohesiveness. Directive behavior had a negative effect, and

supportive had a positive effect on team cohesiveness. The negative effect of directive

leadership was stronger in individualistic cultures.

Keywords: Leadership, National Culture, Team Cohesiveness


INTRODUCTION

Conflict is inevitably part of organizational life, particularly when people work in

teams. To limit the amount of destructive conflicts and deal effectivily with the

appearing conflicts, cohesiveness within the team is important (Jehn & Mannix,

2001). Social cohesion is often defined as the level of bonding to a group, the extend

to which members feel they are part of the team and the desire to stay within the team

Cohesiveness is strongly related to organizational citizenship (Chen, Lam,

Schaubroeck, & Naumann, 2002; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,

2000) and team performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Langfred, 1998). An important

part therefore of the management of teams is the development of cohesiveness among

the team members (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).

The goal of the present study is to clarify the relations between leadership

styles, in particular supportive and directive leadership and team cohesiveness.

Moreover, we will examine the effect of national culture on this relationship. We

focus on the cultural dimension that is highly relevant for organizational practices,

leadership and team work, being the degree to which a society can be described as

individualistic or collectivistic (Hofstede, 2001).

Team cohesivess and culture

Individualism–collectivism (IC) is the most documented and recognized

dimension of the original four dimensions developed by Hofstede (2001).; (see also

Smith, Peterson, Schwartz, et al., 2002 and Triandis, 2001). IC is defined as “the

degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as IC has

been studied widely in organizational research (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson,


2003). Matsumoto, for example, considers IC a very important dimension in relation

to work organizations: “Collectivistic cultural values foster more conformity in

group, section or unit behavior. Harmony within groups is valued more in

collectivistic cultures, members are more likely to engage in behaviors that ensure

harmony and to refrain from behaviors that threaten harmony“ (Matsumoto, 2000,

455). Given the central place of group values, the IC dimension seems particularly

relevant to relate in this study to team cohesiveness. A number of studies has shown

that collectivists tend to have a stronger attachment to their organizations and tend to

subordinate their individual goals to group goals (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Triadis,

1995). Based on these theoretical and empirical arguments we expect a positive

relation between collectivism and cohesion.

H1 Collectivism is positively related to team cohesiveness.

Leadership and culture

Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context is expanding quickly

worldwide, exploring and explaining differences in managerial styles between

countries and cultures. The cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede have been

used extensively, showing relations -for example- between collectivism and different

leader behaviors (see for a review; Dickson, et al, 2003; Hofstede, 2001; Smith, et al.,

2002).

According to Hofstede (2001) managers in more collectivistic cultures aspire

more for conformity and orderliness, and do not support employee initiative. Respect

and obedience to leaders are important in many collectivistic cultures, where

paternalistic leadership is traditionally often seen (Dickson, et al., 2003; Dorfman et

al., 1997). This ‘paternalistic’ style is a typical combination of both directive and


supportive leadership, high on status-orientation, support and involvement in the lives

of employees, also the non-work part of it. In a ‘paternalistic’ leadership style close

supervision and control of employees is combined with high care for the well being of

the person. This combination of both directive and supportive leadership behaviors

seems to be widespread, particularly in non-western cultures (Dickson et al., 2003).

Directive leadership is in general less common practice and less seen as

appropriate and good leader behavior in individualistic (Western) countries, compared

to collectivist societies (Hofstede, 2001; Dickson et al., 2003). Supportive leadership

behavior as well, seems to be appreciated more in collectivist cultures, compared with

individualistic cultures. As mentioned before, in collectivist cultures, there is a strong

emphasis on group relations, reduction of group tensions, and care for personal well

being of employees. Collectivists maintain longer-term relations with their

organizations and value interpersonal skills and relations more than individualists,

who are more motivated by self-interests and personal goals (Jung & Avolio, 1999). It

is likely, that in collectivist cultures supportive leadership is more common indeed, as

this is a core value of the cultural orientation. We therefore expect directive and

supportive leadership to be more present in collectivistic cultures.

H2 Directive leadership is negatively related with cultural individualism.

H3 Supportive leadership is negatively related with cultural individualism.

Team cohesiveness and Leadership

Cohesiveness is related to leader behavior (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). We focus on

two ‘classic’styles, directive and supportive leadership.


Directive leadership. This style is usually defined as task oriented behavior,

with a strong tendency to control discussions, dominate interactions and personally

direct task completion (Cruz, Henningson, & Smith, 1999). In addition, time

management, pressure to realize targets and close supervision on details are seen as

characteristic (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). In this study, we define directive leadership as

task oriented behavior, with a strong focus on targets, close supervision and control of

subordinate actions.

Directive leadership seems to be negatively related to team cohesiveness, group

organizational citizenship and open communication (Cruz et al., 1999; Paine &

Organ, 2000; Podsakoff et al ,2000),

Supportive leadership, is a style originally defined by House (1971). It usually

incudes sensitivity to team member needs. In this study supportive leadership includes

sensitivity to individual and group needs, care for group tensions and focus on

harmonic working relations.) supportive leadership to be a strong predictor of

cohesive relations among team members (Chen et.al., 2002)

H4 Directive leadership is negatively related with team cohesiveness.

H5 Supportive leadership is positively related with team cohesiveness.

Culture, Leadership and Cohesiveness

We have argued that leadership styles are important for team cohesiveness,

and that leadership and cohesiveness might be influenced by national culture. We

now focus on the possible moderating effect of culture on the relation between

leadership and cohesiveness.


There is growing evidence that some leader behaviors are universally effective,

whereas others are culturally contingent (Dickson et al., 2003). Dorfman et al (1997)

reported a study in which managers from five different countries participated.

Supportive leadership was found to be consistently endorsed in all five countries,

whereas directive leadership was culturally contingent, with positive effects in more

collectivist countries, such as Taiwan and Mexico. Though only limited to a small

sample of countries, this suggests that the effects of supportive leadership might

indeed be positive, regardless of the cultural context. Directive leadership on the other

hand seems to have different effects depending on this cultural context. According to

Dickson et al (2003) this fits in a growing body of knowledge in which some

leadership behaviors are universaly appropriate, while others are culturally

contingent. This might also be applicated to the relation between leadership styles and

cohesiveness, in the sense that the (negative) efffect of directive leadership might be

moderated by culture, whereas supportive leadership has a positive effect on

cohesiveness, regardless of the cultural context.

Directive leadership styles are not only more prevalent, but also seem to be

perceived as more appropriate and effective in collectivistic cultures, compared with

individualistic cultures (Dickson et al., 2003). Though too much directive behavior

might also inhibit cohesiveness collectivist cultures (Paine & Organ, 2000), it is likely

to expect that in individualistic cultures this effect is stronger. Here, employees focus

more on personal needs and rewards and take care of themselves. If a manager in such

a context exercises a directive leadership style, the feeling to be part of a great team

and the desire to stay in such a team will not be promoted. .

We conclude with the expectation that supportive leadership has a positive

effect on cohesiveness, regardless of the cultural context, therefore is not moderated


by individualism-collectivism, whereas directive leadership does has a stronger

negative impact on cohesiveness in more individualistic countries. Though formally

the 0-hypothesis can not be tested, we do formulate our expectations, for reasons of

consistency for both styles.

H6 The negative impact of directive leadership on cohesiveness is stronger in

individualistic countries, compared with collectivistic countries.

H7 The positive impact of supportive leadership on cohesiveness is not different

in individualistic countries, compared with collectivistic countries.

METHOD

Population and Sample

This study used data from the database of a world-wide operating consulting

firm (Hay Group). The dataset contains multi-actor data of management and their

employees within 473 organizations for a wide range of industries and services, both

public and private. Data was collected during the period 1992 – 2002. Data collection

was part of the assessment of management training programs within each of the

organizations and this guaranteed a response rate of approximately 100%.

For our analyses, we selected countries for which there were at least 100

questionnaires. To meet this criterion, we combined the information of Norway,

Sweden and Denmark into a ‘Nordic countries’. Likewise, the Arab countries Qatar,

Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates were also combined in to one group ‘Arab

Countries’ to meet this criterion. The final dataset included 34 countries. For the

present study, the information from 20,943 self-assessment questionnaires by

managers and 96,550 questionnaires of corresponding employees was available.


Seventy percent of the respondents were male and 30% female managers. Average

age of the respondents was 41.5 years.

Measurement

Team Cohesiveness. Cohesiveness was measured with four items, e.g., ‘The

people our proud to belong to my workgroup’, and ’There is a lot of personal loyalty

to the work group’. The scale used a Likert-type scale, with answers ranging from 1

to 5, with on the extreme poles the alternative answers. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale

was .75.

T-tests between the scores of each manager and the corresponding employees

on the cohesiveness items, revealed no significant differences between the two

groups, thus the responses were used to compute one measure of cohesiveness,

whereby each respondent received the same weight.

Directive and Supportive Leadership. The two leadership dimensions were

measured with the original scales of Litwin and Stringer (1968, see Hay/McBer,

2000). Factor analysis of these items resulted in two factors (see Table 1).

- Insert Table 1 about here -

Directive leadership was measured with 9 items (α = .82). Supportive leadership was

measured with 7 items (α = .85). The items of both scales were measured using bi-

polar (6-point) scales, with two opposing responses on both ends. Since this is a

measurement of leadership style, the scores from the managers themselves were

omitted, and only the scores of the employees were used.


Individualistic vs. Collectivistic National Cultures. The individualistic vs

collectivistic dimension (IC) of Hofstede was used. Each country was assigned the

score as computed and reported by Hofstede (2001).

Data Analyses

Data were collected at two levels. Leadership styles (from the scores of the

employees) and cohesiveness (from the combined scores of the managers and

employees) are measured at level 1 (i.e., the lowest level). Individualism (IC) is a

measure at the aggregate (country) level or level 2 (i.e., the higher level). Data

analysis was performed using MLwiN 1.2 (Rasbach 1999).

RESULTS

For each country in our sample the means for key variables are presented in Table 2.


Table 3 provides an overview of the statistics and correlations between key variables,

leadership styles and cohesiveness, at individual level and individualism (IC) at

country-level.


Descriptive Results

A few interesting observations may be noticed from Table 3. First, the mean

scores on managerial behavior show that world wide supportive behavior is used more


than directive behavior, and that these two styles correlate slightly negative (-.11).

Second, the countries in this study do represent both strongly individualistic countries

as well as collectivistic countries, with a mean (.47; SD 26.4) close to the original

mean of scale (.50) by Hofstede (2001). Third, cohesiveness is –as expected-

positively related with supportive managerial behavior (r= .30), and negatively with

directive leadership (-.23). Also, the correlations between both styles with

individualism are negative, as expected. For supportive leadership this correlation is -

.27. For directive leadership the correlation is even a strong -.74, indicating that in

collectivist countries managers indeed do use directive leadership styles more

frequently.

Test of hypotheses

Culture and cohesiveness.

Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relation between collectivism and team

cohesiveness. Neither at simple correlational level, nor using multi-level analysis, a

relation was found. Therefore there is no support for H1.

Directive leadership and culture.

Hypothesis2 predicted a negative relation between individualism and the use of

directive leadership. Model 1 in Table 4 shows the results for the intercept-only model

for directive behavior, the model that contains no explanatory variables at all (Hox,

2002). The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2

e+ σ2 country) is .21.4, i.e. 21.4%

of the variance is explained by the grouping structure in the population (Hox, 2002).

Adding the Cultural parameter Individualism improved the model (Diff –2 Log

Likelihood 28, 1 dF, p < .01). These results support hypothesis 2.



Supportive leadership and culture.

Hypothesis3 predicted a negative relation between individualism and the use of

supportive leadership. Model 1 in Table 5 shows the results for the supportive

leadership style. The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2

e+ σ2 country) is .16.6.

Adding the Cultural parameter Individualism improves the model (Diff –2 Log

Likelihood 2.8, 1 dF, p < .10). These results support hypothesis 3.


When we plot the leadership styles of the individualistic and collectivistic cultures,

the same pattern becomes clear. Figure 1 illustrates the main effects of culture on both

styles.

- Insert Figure 1 about here -

Leadership styles and cohesiveness.

Two hypotheses relate leadership styles with cohesiveness, H4 predicts a negative

relation for directive leadership, and H5 predicts a positive relation for supportive

leadership.

Model 1 in Table 6 shows the results for the intercept-only model for cohesiveness.

The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2

e+ σ2 country) is .094.

In model 2 we enter the directive and supportive styles at individual level. Both

parameters are significant, and in line with hypotheses. The directive style has a


negative effect on cohesiveness, and the supportive style a positive effect, offering

support for both H4 and H5.

Culture, leadership and cohesiveness.

Our final hypotheses predict a moderating effect of culture on the relation

between leadership behavior and cohesiveness. We expected that in individualistic

cultures the effects of directive leadership on cohesiveness are more negative, than in

collectivistic cultures, whereas the effect of supportive leadership is not moderated by

culture. The testing consists of two steps. The first step is to check if there is a direct

relationship from IC on cohesiveness (model 3a). We have to reject this model, and

continue with the interaction-model (3b). The model with interaction is a significant

improvement for directive behavior only. The model does not improve when the

interaction of supportive leadership with IC is added, offering support for hypotheses

six and seven.


A plot of the moderating effect of Individualism, presented in figure 2, shows that in

individualistic countries a directive style has a stronger (negative) impact on

cohesiveness compared to collectivistic countries.

- Insert Figure 2 about here -


DISCUSSION

This study explores the relations between managerial behavior and team

cohesiveness in different cultures. A first surprising outcome, is that the national

culture does not have impact on the level of cohesiveness, as experienced by

managers and team members. Though we expected to find more cohesive relations in

collectivist cultures, we did not.

Dorfman et al (1997) present a theoretical model with both a causal effect of

culture on leadership behaviors and a moderating effect of culture on the effects of

leadership behaviors. Our study demonstrates the validity of this model. Moreover,

this study specifies the moderating effect, as this was found for directive leadership

behavior only.

There have been only a limited number of managerial studies reporting from

over 30 countries (Smith et al, 2002). The present findings offer interesting insights

and support the idea that indeed in collectivistic cultures, compared with

individualistic cultures, leaders do behave more directive and more supportive at the

same time. This reflects the typical paternalistic way of managing, in which the leader

takes care of his employees, and in return demands obedience, which can be seen as

representative for many collectivistic cultures (Chen, 1995; Dickson et al, 2003).

The observations of over 100.000 employees from 473 companies give a clear

indication of the managerial behavior. Leaders worldwide apparently use the

supportive style considerably more than the directive style. This is good news for

management worldwide, as this style contributes positive to team cohiseveness.


The effects of directive behavior were indeed more negative in individualistic

cultures. No moderating effect was found for culture on the positive relation between

supportive leadership and cohesiveness. This suggests that supportive leadership is

important, regardless of the cultural context. These results are in line with findings

from the GLOBE project (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, t.al., 1999), in which

inspirational and team oriented attributes are worldwide seen as important for

effective leaders, while domineering, formal and willful characteristics vary widely in

their relevance across cultures. Our results are also in line with and largely extent the

findings by Dorfman et al. (1997,) from their previously mentioned five-country

study. They conclude that “three behaviors (leader supportiveness, contingent reward,

and charismatic) showed universally positive impacts in all five cultures; and three

leader behaviors (participativeness, directiveness, and contingent punishment) had

positive impact in only two cultures (p.262).” The present study offers further support

for the idea that some leadership behaviors are indeed universal in their effects, while

the effects of other styles are moderated by culture.

One of the strengths but also one of the limitations of this study is the sample.

The participating organizations and respondents have usually an international or even

Western orientation. This is due to the use of the consultancy firm that collected the

data. This might cause a response bias, in the sense that these companies might under-

represent the actual national culture they are part of. Even with this sample, however,

we find clear main effects of culture on managerial behavior, as well as on the relation

of directive behavior and team cohesiveness.

Another limitation of this sample is the lack of demographic data, which

makes it impossible to control for important variables as gender, age, and education.


Also it should be mentioned that there is an under representation of Eastern

European and African countries in this sample, as has been the case in most cross-

cultural data-bases (Den Hartog, et al., 1999; Hofstede, 2001).

Finally, we like to underscore the importance of supportive managerial

behavior. This seems indeed a universal highly valued way of leading people,

regardless the cultural environment. In this respect people around the globe do have

the same values and needs.


References

Chang, A., & Bordia, P. 2001. A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion –

group performance relationship. Small Group Research, vol. 32, No. 4: 379-

405.

Chen, X.P, Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Naumann, S. 2002. Group Organizational

Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptualization and preliminary test of its

antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Proceedings 2002.

Cruz, M.A., Henningsen, D.D. & Smith, B.A. 1999. The impact of directive

leadership on group information sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the

leader. Communication Research, 26, 349-370.

Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. and associates. 1999. Culture specific

and crossculturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are the

attributes of charismatic/ transformational leadership universally endorsed?

Leadership Quarterly, 10: 219-256.

Dickson, M.W., Den Hartog, D.N., Mitchelson, J.K. 2003. Research on Leadership in

a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions.

Leadership Quarterly, 14: 729-768.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U. & Bautista, A. 1997.

Leadership in Western and Asian countries: commonalities and differences in

effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8: 233-

274.


Druskat, V.U. & Wheeler, J.V. 2003. Managing from the boundary: The effective

leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management, 46, 4, 435-

457.

Hay/McBer. 2000. The Organization Climate Dimensions, Hay/McBer white paper,

Boston, M.A.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Sage.

House, R.J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16: 321-339.

House, R.J., Aditya, R.N. & Ram, N.1997. The social scientific study of leadership:

Quo Vadis?, Journal of management, 23: 409-474.

Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal

study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management

Journal, vol. 44, No. 2: 238-251.

Jung, D.I., & Avolio, B.J. 1999. Effects of Leadership style and followers’cultural

orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy

of Management Journal, 42: 208-219.

Langfred, C.W. 1998. Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? Small Group

Research, vol 29, No. 1: 124-144.

Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston:

Harvard University Press.

Matsumoto, D. 2000. Culture and Psychology, People around the world. Wadsworth,

Australia.

Offerman, L.R., & Hellmann, P.S. 1997. Culture’s consequences for leadership

behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28: 342-351.


Paine, J.B., & Organ, D.W. 2000. The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship

behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human

Resource Management Review, 10: 45-59.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. 2000.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of

Management, 26: 513-563.

Rasbash, J. et.al. 1999. A users guide to MlwiN, London, Institute of Education.

Raudenbush, S. Bryk, A. Cheong, Y.F. & Congdon, R. 2001. HLM5, Hierarchical

Linear and Nonlinear Modeling, Scientific Software International.

Schmidt, S.M. & Yeh, R.S. 1992. The structure of leader influence, a cross-national

comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23: 251-264.

Smith, P.B., Peterson F., Schwartz S. et al. (2002). Cultural values, sources of

guidance and their relevance to managerial behaviour: a 47 nation study.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33: 188-208.

Triandis, C.H. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: CO: Westview Press.

Triandis H.C. 2001. Individualism-Collectivism and personality, Journal of

Personality, 96: 907-924


Table 1

Results of Factor Analysis of Leadership Items

Factor 1 Factor 2

Supportive leadership (α = .85)

− Works hard to ease tensions whenever they arise in work group .726 -.045

− Discourages arguments that might lead to conflict among employees

.632 .127

− Encourages employees to talk to him/her about personal problems .698 -.117

− Devotes a great deal of time to employees’ job security and fringe benefits.

.675 .037

− Works to develop close personal relationships with employees .749 -.086

− Relies on what he/she learns through personal contact with employees to use each person’s talent most effectively.

.788 -.092

− Frequently demonstrates concern for employees .778 -.232

Directive leadership(α = .82)

− Expects his/her employees to follow my instructions precisely -.232 .676

− Motivates employees by letting them know what will happen to them if their work is unsatisfactory.

-.030 .518

− Requires employees to submit detailed reports of their activities .105 .678

− Makes sure that he/she does the important tasks self -.151 .394

− Makes most decisions for employees -.273 .688

− Supervises employees very closely .145 .778

Eigenvalue 3.92 3.92

% Variance explained 24.52 24.5


Table 2

Sample size and mean scores on the main variables per country.

N Supportive leadership

Directive

leadershipCohesive

ness Individualism Argentina 127 72.41 54.84 4.94 46.0 Arab Countries 135 62.28 58.32 4.66 38.0 Australia 11,443 58.40 47.80 4.69 90.0 Belgium 446 58.43 54.12 4.60 75.0 Brazil 2,222 69.80 58.68 4.52 38.0 Canada 1,080 63.64 46.32 5.00 80.0 Chile 148 68.95 52.53 4.77 23.0 Colombia 328 60.01 60.23 4.82 13.0 Germany 789 62.32 47.25 4.71 67.0 Spain 2,573 62.31 60.01 4.65 51.0 France 1,752 61.67 54.41 4.41 71.0 Greece 310 61.65 58.43 4.59 35.0 Hong Kong 1,148 56.65 56.48 4.39 25.0 Italy 292 64.19 50.07 4.52 76.0 India 500 66.59 50.79 4.73 48.0 Ireland 1,374 60.73 48.55 4.45 70.0 Japan 952 59.22 50.47 4.54 46.0 Malaysia 46,95 59.58 57.52 4.28 26.0 Mexico 1,085 65.17 57.72 4.72 30.0 The Netherlands 2,339 56.47 48.67 4.65 80.0 Nordic countries 174 63.37 47.59 4.81 71.3 New Zealand 1,997 59.67 50.44 4.66 79.0 China 797 65.41 53.94 4.53 15.0 Indonesia 420 59.86 61.47 4.62 14.0 Korea 148 61.61 54.52 4.56 18.0 Philippines 1,308 56.24 50.80 4.66 32.0 Singapore 1,648 57.76 53.43 4.43 20.0 Thailand 106 73.40 60.73 4.34 20.0 Turkey 123 70.23 63.35 4.47 37.0 Taiwan 233 63.21 55.13 4.53 17.0 UK 11,856 61.48 46.46 4.74 89.0 USA 64,380 60.31 47.17 4.83 91.0 Venezuela 561 74.93 60.56 5.01 12.0 South Africa 166 66.21 51.03 4.61 65.0 Total 117,655 60.52 49.33 4.72 47.0


Table 3

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of main variables.

N Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Supportive 20,493 60.5 10.6

2. Directive 20,493 49.3 10.1 -.11**

3. Cohesiveness 20,493 4.72 .54 .30** -.23**

4. Individualism 34 47.0 26.4 -.27* -.74** .23

* p < .10, ** p < .01


Table 4 Multi-level analysis of directive leadership with cultural individualism

Model 1 Model 2

Parameter estimate

SE Parameter estimate

SE

Fixed part Intercept 53.77 .842 60.40 1.164 Individualism - .140 .021 Random part Σ2

e 84.69 .84 84.69 .837 Σ2

country 23.05 5.85 9.57 2.55 -2 Log Likelihood 149,251 149,224 Diff –2 Log Likelihood

28 (1 DF)


Table 5

Multi-level analysis of the supportive leadership-styles with cultural individualism

Model 1 Model 2

Parameter estimate


SE

Fixed part Intercept 62.93 .816 60.40 1.164 Individualism - .140 .021 Random part σ2

e 107.127 1.06 84.69 .837 σ2

country 21.300 5.48 9.57 2.55 -2 Log Likelihood 154058.7 154055.9 Diff –2 Log Likelihood

2.8 (1 DF)


Table 6 Linear mixed model for Cohesiveness (N=20,493).

Model 1 Model 2

Parameter estimate


SE

Fixed part Intercept -.166 .055 -.154 .050 Directive -.153 .007 Supportive .282 .007 Individualism Directive * Individualism

Random part σ2

e .909 .009 .803 .008 σ2

country .094 .025 .075 .020 -2 Log Likelihood 56,291.610 53,760.110

Model 3a Model 3b

Parameter estimate


SE

Fixed part Intercept -.157 .049 -.181 .051 Directive -.153 .007 - .117 .011 Supportive .283 .007 .282 .007 Individualism .054 .048 ns .078 .048 ns Directive * Individualism

- .033 .007

Random part σ2

e .803 .008 .803 .008 σ2

country .071 .019 .076 .021 -2 Log Likelihood 53,758.880 53,740.530 Diff –2 Log Likelihood

0 (1 dF) (1 dF)


Figure 1

Supportive and directive leadership styles in collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

45

50

55

60

65

Supportive Directive

Collectivism Individualism


Figure 2

Cohesiveness as result of directive leadership in collectivistic and individualistic

cultures.

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Collectivism Individualism

Documents

Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Culturesunpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/... · Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Cultures IACM 2004 ... high