37
MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

MIM 512Global Leadership & Ethics

January 2012

Portland State University

Page 2: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Agenda

• Review & Questions from last class• Guest Lecture• Lecture

• Followership• Leadership & Culture• Dimensional Definitions

• Javidan & Carl Article & Discussion

Page 3: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

FollowershipThe extent to which followers identify with a leaderFollowers empower, legitimize, and provide leaders

the means to reach objectivesAs followers we define our reality through leadership:

• Business, finance, education, religion, sports, politics• Gender & culture apply to this reality

What happens if a leaders does not fit our “leadership perceptions?”• How does followership bias shape leader’s success?

Page 4: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Followership: Perceptions

Page 5: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Followership"Aristotle believed these three

characteristics to be the intelligence of the speaker (correctness of opinions, or competence), the character of the speaker (reliability - a competence factor, and honesty - a measure of intentions), and the goodwill of the speaker (favorable intentions towards the listener)."

Page 6: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

The Nature of Culture

CultureAcquired knowledge that

people use to interpret experience and generate social behaviorforms valuescreates attitudesinfluences behavior.

Page 7: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Characteristics of Culture

CultureCulture

LearnedLearned

SharedShared

TransgenerationalTransgenerational

SymbolicSymbolic

PatternedPatterned

AdaptiveAdaptive

Page 8: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture and LeadershipCentralized vs. decentralized decision makingSafety vs. riskIndividual vs. group rewardsInformal vs. formal proceduresHigh vs. low organizational loyaltyCooperation vs. competitionShort-term vs. long-term horizonsStability vs. innovation

Page 9: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture & Leadership DescriptionCulture & Leadership – focuses on a collection of related

ideas rather than a single unified theory

Globalization – Increased after World War IIIncreased interdependence between nations

Economic, social, technical, politicalHas created many challenges

Need to design multinational organizations Identify and select leaders for these

organizationsManage organizations with culturally diverse

employees

Page 10: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture & Leadership DescriptionGlobalization has created a need –

to understand how cultural differences affect leadership performance

for leaders to become competent in cross-cultural awareness and practice

Five cross-cultural competencies for Leaders (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992)

1. Understand business, political, & cultural environments worldwide

2. Learn the perspectives, tastes, trends & technologies of many cultures

Page 11: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture & Leadership DescriptionFive cross-cultural competencies for Leaders

(Adler & Bartholomew, 1992), cont’d. 3. Be able to work simultaneously with people

from many cultures4. Be able to adapt to living & communicating in

other cultures5. Need to learn to relate to people from other

cultures from a position of equality rather than superiority

Global leaders need to –be skilled in creating transcultural visionsdevelop communication competencies to

implement these visions

Page 12: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Values in Culture

Values◦ Basic convictions that people have

right and wrong good and bad important and unimportant

◦ Learned from the culture in which the individual is reared

◦ Influence one’s behaviorDifferences in cultural values may result in varying

management practices

Page 13: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

What are your top 10 values?Age/seniority

AuthorityBelongingnessCollectivenessCompetitionCompromiseCooperationDevotionDirectnessEfficiencyEqualityIndependenceFamily harmonyFamily security

FreedomGo-betweenGroup consensusGroup harmonyIndependenceIndirectnessIndividualismHospitalityOpennessParental guidancePatienceQualitySelf-relianceTime

Page 14: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

United States Japan

Priorities of Cultural ValuesPriorities of Cultural Values: United States and Japan

1. Freedom2. Independence3. Self-reliance4. Equality5. Individualism6. Competition7. Efficiency8. Time9. Directness10. Openness

1. Belonging2. Group harmony3. Collectiveness4. Age/seniority5. Group consensus6. Cooperation7. Quality8. Patience9. Indirectness10. Go-between

Note: “1” represents the most important cultural value, “10” the least.

Adapted from Table 4-1: Priorities of Cultural Values: United States, Japan, and Arab Countries

Page 15: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

15

The American-Japanese Cultural DivideJapanese American

Patience

Man within nature Man controlling natureCaution Risk-takingIncremental improvement Bold initiativeDeliberation SpontaneityAdherence to form ImprovisationSilence OutspokennessMemorization Critical thinkingEmotional sensitivity Logical reasoningIndirectness Clarity and franknessAssuaging ConfrontingAvoiding ThreateningConsensus building Decisiveness

Action

Page 16: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

16

The American-Japanese Cultural DivideJapanese American

Harmony

Conformity IndividualityGroup convention Personal principleTrusted relationships Legal safeguardsCollective strength Individual independenceMaintain the group Protect the individualModest resignation Righteous indignationSaving face Being heardOppressive unanimity Chaotic anarchyHumble cooperation Proving oneself

Freedom

Page 17: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

17

The American-Japanese Cultural Divide

Japanese American

Hierarchy

Rewarding seniority Rewarding performanceLoyalty Track recordGeneralists SpecialistsObligations OpportunitiesUntiring effort Fair effortShame GuiltDependency AutonomyDutiful relationships Level playing fieldIndustrial groups Industrial competitionStrict ranking Ambiguous/informal rankingRacial differentiation Racial equalityGender differentiation Gender equality

Equality

Page 18: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Values in Culture There is a reasonably strong relationship

between the level of success achieved by leaders and their personal values.

◦ Some differences, but similar findings for four countries (U.S., Japan, Australia, India)

◦ Could be used in selection and placement decisions.

Values of more successful leaders appear to favor

◦ Pragmatic, dynamic, achievement-oriented◦ Active role in interaction with others

Values of less successful leaders tend toward

◦ Static and passive values◦ Relatively passive roles in interacting with others

Page 19: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

19

Comparing Cultures as Overlapping Normal Distribution

Chinese Culture

?

U.S. Culture

?

Page 20: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

20

Stereotyping from the Cultural Extremes: Brugha and Du’s research

Chinese Culture U.S. Culture

How Americans see the Chinese• in community• avoid confrontation (keep in harmony)• respect for authorities and seniors

How Chinese see Americans• individualism

• face confrontation (arguments and debates)

• respect for achievements

Page 21: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed unequally◦ High power distance countries:

people blindly obey the orders of their superiors, centralized and tall organization structures

◦ Low power distance countries: flatter and decentralized organization structures, smaller ratio of supervisors

Power Distance

Power Distance

Page 22: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Hofstede’s Cultural DimensionsExtent to which people feel threatened by

ambiguous situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid such situations◦ High uncertainty avoidance countries:

people have high need for security, strong belief in experts and their knowledge, structured organizational activities, more written rules, less risk taking by managers

◦ Low uncertainty avoidance countries: people are more willing to accept risks associated with the unknown, less structured organizational activities, fewer written rules, more risk taking by managers, higher employee turnover, more ambitious employees

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Page 23: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Individualism: Tendency of people to look after themselves and their immediate family onlyCountries high in individualism: tend to

be wealthier, support protestant work ethic, greater individual initiative, promotions based on market value

Collectivism: Tendency of people to belong to groups or collectives and to look after each other in exchange for loyaltyCountries high in collectivism: tend to

be poorer, less support for protestant work ethic, less individual initiative, promotions based on seniority

Individualism/Collectivism

Individualism/Collectivism

Page 24: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Clusters of World Cultures

Page 25: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Characteristics include - Anglo – competitive and result-oriented

Confucian Asia – result-driven, encourage group working together over individual goals

Eastern Europe – forceful, supportive of co-workers, treat women with equality

Germanic Europe – value competition & aggressiveness and are more result-oriented

Latin America – loyal & devoted to their families and similar groups

Characteristics of ClustersObservations

Page 26: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Characteristics include - Latin Europe – value individual autonomy

Middle East – devoted & loyal to their own people, women afforded less status

Nordic Europe – high priority on long-term success, women treated with greater equality

Southern Asia – strong family & deep concern for their communities

Sub-Sahara Africa – concerned & sensitive to others, demonstrate strong family loyalty

Characteristics of ClustersObservations

Page 27: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Examples of Cultural Dimensions

CountryCountry Power Power DistanceDistance Individualism*Individualism* Masculinity**Masculinity** Uncertainty Uncertainty

AvoidanceAvoidanceLong-term Long-term

Orientation***Orientation***

ChinaChina HighHigh LowLow ModerateModerate ModerateModerate HighHigh

FranceFrance HighHigh HighHigh ModerateModerate HighHigh LowLow

GermanyGermany LowLow HighHigh HighHigh ModerateModerate ModerateModerate

Hong KongHong Kong HighHigh LowLow HighHigh LowLow HighHigh

IndonesiaIndonesia HighHigh LowLow ModerateModerate LowLow LowLow

JapanJapan ModerateModerate ModerateModerate HighHigh ModerateModerate ModerateModerate

NetherlandsNetherlands LowLow HighHigh LowLow ModerateModerate ModerateModerate

RussiaRussia HighHigh ModerateModerate LowLow HighHigh LowLow

United StatesUnited States LowLow HighHigh HighHigh LowLow LowLow

West AfricaWest Africa HighHigh LowLow ModerateModerate ModerateModerate LowLow

* A low score is synonymous with collectivism** A low score is synonymous with masculinity*** A low score is synonymous with a short-term orientation

Page 28: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Global leadership behaviors:

Charismatic/value-based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance from others based on strongly held core values

Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common purpose among team members.

Leadership Behavior & Culture Clusters

Page 29: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Global leadership behaviors:

Participative leadership reflects the degree to which leaders involve others in making and implementing decisions.

Humane-oriented leadership emphasizes being supportive, considerate, compassionate, and generous.

Leadership Behavior & Culture Clusters

Page 30: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Global leadership behaviors:

Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic leadership, which includes being autonomous and unique.

Self-protective leadership reflects behaviors that ensure the safety and security of the leader and the group.

Leadership Behavior & Culture Clusters

Page 31: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture Clusters & Desired Leadership BehaviorsConfucian Asia Leadership Profile

A leader who works & cares about others but uses status & position to make independent decisions without input of others

Page 32: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture Clusters & Desired Leadership BehaviorsSouthern Asia Leadership Profile

Effective leadership as especially collaborative, inspirational, sensitive to people’s needs and concerned with status & face saving

Page 33: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Culture Clusters & Desired Leadership BehaviorsUSA Leadership Profile

Want leaders to be exceedingly motivating & visionary, considerate of others, team-oriented & autonomous and not autocratic

Page 34: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Universally Desirable Leadership AttributesUniversally Desirable Leadership Attributes

Page 35: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes

Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes

Page 36: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Javidan’s ModelVisionary – develop a new sense of directionInnovator – risk takers who generate ideasMobilizer – develop a pool of intellectual energyAuditor – High performance expectationsAmbassadors – understands intra/inter orgs

+Socializer – inclusive of othersConsideration - listensSelf-sacrifice – viewed as participativeAnalyzer – understands and listens

Page 37: MIM 512 Global Leadership & Ethics January 2012 Portland State University

Taiwan versus CanadaShared Charisma, ambassador, & auditor

in leadersCanadians value visionary leaders

• advancement• individualistic

Taiwanese value mobilizer leaders• cooperation• belongingness• work climate