The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
LODJ
28,6
508
Received August 2006
Revised March 2007
Accepted March 2007
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 28 No. 6, 2007
pp. 508-530
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730710780967
Leadership preferences in Japan:
an exploratory study
Aya Fukushige and David P. Spicer
Bradford University School of Management, Bradford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to explore Japanese followers’ leadership preferences and consider the
suitability of Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model in Japan.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative approach is used predominantly, including
template analyses and several content analyses. Data collection is divided into two phases: Phase 1
was conducted by semi-structured interviews and Phase 2 by questionnaires.
Findings – Results suggest the unsuitability of Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model in a
Japanese context, indicate some impact of cultural changes in Japan, and identify liberal, trust,
punctual, network, protective, and after-five as Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles.
Research limitations/implications – The paper indicates that in a Japanese context not only is the
new leadership approach of Bass and Avolio’s model of value but also the traditional approach of
House’s path-goal theory. Whilst the qualitative data of this study give insight into existing theories
and leadership perspectives in Japan, findings should be further examined in future research.
Practical implications – The paper offers guidance for leaders who deal with Japanese followers
by identifying leadership styles within Bass and Avolio’s model, and culture-specific leadership styles
which are particularly preferred by Japanese followers.
Originality/value – This paper identified that, building upon Bass and Avolio’s and House’s
leadership theories, a new Japanese leadership model, which particularly suits contemporary Japanese
followers’ leadership preferences, should be developed.
Keywords Cross-cultural management, Leadership, Japan
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
There has been a strong North-American bias in leadership research (Blair and
Hunt, 1986; Den Hartog and Dickson, 2004). One of the most well-known leadership
theories over the past two decades, Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership
model, is archetypal of this bias, yet it is proponents often claim that this model applies
universally (Bass, 1996). However, whilst a great deal of literature has investigated
Japanese management practices, research on leadership in Japan has been relatively
sparse. Only a few empirical studies have been conducted in Japan (Yokochi-Bryce,
1989), and given cultural differences (Hofstede, 2001; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985), it is
reasonable to speculate there may be culture-specific elements of leadership and Bass
and Avolio’s (1997) model might not be completely applicable to Japan. The present
study therefore looks to explore whether cultural differences influence leadership
preferences and hence the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s model to a Japanese context.
Furthermore, researchers have tended to focus on leaders, and leadership has
“tended to be defined from the perspectives of leaders and not of followers” (Meindl,
1995, p. 329). Very little research has considered followers’ leadership preferences
(Brain and Lewis, 2004; Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Littrell and Valentin, 2005;
Vecchio and Boatwright, 2002). This represents a significant avenue for study given Leadership
that leader effectiveness is potentially defined by the responses of those around them preferences
(Erez and Earley, 1993). This study therefore seeks to make a further contribution by
examining followers’ leadership preferences. in Japan
This research therefore aims to consider the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s
(1997) full-range leadership model and explore the nature of follower’s leadership
preferences in Japan, as well as considering whether any culturally specific aspects of 509
leadership can be identified. It begins by reviewing literature considering Japanese
culture and Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model, and describing the data collection methods
employed. It then moves to present the results and offer discussion in relation to three
research questions defined below. Implications for research and practice are also
suggested.

Japanese culture and the full-range leadership model

Bass’s (1985) and Bass and Avolio’s (1997) “full-range leadership Model” which
conceptualizes transformational and transactional forms of leadership has perhaps
been the most cited source for leadership researchers in the past two decades. From
this model, they have developed the “The multifactor leadership questionnaire” (MLQ),
the latest version of which (MLQ Form 5X; Bass and Avolio, 2000) consists of five
transformational leadership scales, three transactional leadership scales, and one
non-leadership scale (Table I). Empirical studies considering the full-range leadership
model through the MLQ have proliferated (Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell and Avolio,
1993; Howell and Higgins, 1990), with most being undertaken in the USA and
Anglo-Saxon countries (Avolio et al., 1999; Tejeda et al., 2001). Work exploring the
full-range leadership model in other cultural contexts is limited. Yet, Bass (1997)
suggests that the model is universal regardless of cultural differences, with
transformational leadership styles being seen as more effective than transactional.
However, it is evident that other cultures, and notably for our purpose, Japan
(Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Ronen and Shenkar,
1985; Trompenaars, 1993) differ significantly from the USA, where Bass and Avolio’s
(1997) full-range model was developed and hence approaches to leadership might
similarly differ. Hodgetts and Luthans (2002, p. 431) suggest that “culture can create
some problems in using universal leadership concepts in countries such as Japan.”
Indeed, Yokochi-Bryce’s (1989) research indicates that Japanese leaders display
management-by-exception and Laissez-faire more frequently than contingent reward,
at odds with the expectations of the full-range leadership model. Bass (1997, p. 132) in
commenting on Yokochi-Bryce’s (1989) findings, explained that there are some
situations where universality breaks down. It therefore seems evident that there is
sufficient cause to question the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model in Japan
and to explore culture-specific conceptualizations of leadership.
Accepting that culture plays an important role in understanding leadership in
Japan, means that a deeper understanding of Japanese contemporary culture is
required. Researchers, often refer to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) research indicating that
Japan is moderate on power distance and individualism, and high on masculinity and
uncertainty avoidance. However, these ratings are based upon data obtained between
1967 and 1973, and although it is argued that national cultures are extremely
stable over time (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997; Hofstede, 2001), some researchers
LODJ
Transformational Idealized These leaders have the socialized charisma. They are
28,6 leadership influence perceived as being confident and powerful, and
attributed viewed as focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics.
Followers admire, respect, and trust these leaders as a
role model and want to emulate leaders
Idealized These leaders behave in ways that their actions are
510 influence centred on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission. The
behaviors leaders consider the needs of others over their own
personal needs, and share risks with followers. They
are consistent rather than arbitrary
Inspirational These leaders motivate and inspire followers by
motivation providing meaning and challenge to work. Team
spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are
displayed. These leaders get followers involved in
envisioning attractive future states and create
communicated expectations that followers want to
meet and demonstrate commitment to goals and
shared visions
Intellectual These leaders stimulate followers’ efforts to be
stimulation innovative and creative by questioning assumptions,
reframing problems, and approaching old situations
in new ways. New ideas and creative problem
solutions are solicited from followers who are
included in the process of addressing problems and
finding solutions
Individualized These leaders pay special attention to the needs of
consideration each individual follower for achievement and growth.
Followers are developed to successively higher levels
of potential. A two-way communication is encouraged
and “management by walking around” is practiced
Transactional Contingent These leaders are found to be reasonably effective,
leadership reward although not as much as the five “I”s’ in motivating
others to achieve higher levels of performance. These
leaders assign agreements on what needs to be done
and promise rewards or actually reward followers in
exchanging for satisfactorily carrying out the
assignment
Management by These leaders are found to be less effective than
exception active “Contingent Reward,” but still required in certain
situations. They arrange to actively monitor
deviances from standards, mistakes, and errors in the
followers’ assignments and to take corrective action
as necessary
Management by These leaders wait passively for deviances, mistakes,
exception passive and errors to occur, and then take corrective action
Non-leadership Laissez-faire These leaders represent avoidance or absence of
leadership. They avoid making decisions, abandon
responsibility, and do not use authority. This is
considered the most inactive, as well as ineffective
Table I. approach to leadership by almost all research on
Definitions of Bass and leadership style
Avolio’s nine leadership
Source: Adapted from Avolio and Bass (2002) and Antonakis et al. (2003)
scales
(Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, 1970; Ralston et al., 1997; Whitehill and Arthur, 1964) claim Leadership
that cultures can change and develop. As a result of internationalisation and
widespread management education which reflects Western values and practices,
preferences
Japanese values may well have converged with Western (Kroll, 1993; Littrell and in Japan
Valentin, 2005; Shibata, 2000). Moreover, the recent economic recession in Japan might
have accelerated cultural change. In fact, during 1970s and 1980s, unique Japanese
cultural values, such as consensus decision making, loyalty to firms, and lifetime 511
employment were recognized (Dore, 1973; Murakami, 1984; Nakae, 1970; Ouchi, 1981;
Pascale and Athos, 1981); however, since 1990s, some of these have changed (French,
2000; Hodgetts and Luthans, 1989, 2002; Modic, 1987; Morishima, 1995; Sano, 1993;
Shibata, 2000; Wonoroff, 1992). For example, consensus decision making is no longer
seen as effective (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2002), and economic pressures mean lifetime
employment has become difficult to maintain (Takahashi and Murakami, 2004). These
shifts necessitate our attention in order to properly explore the link between leadership
and culture in Japan, and therefore, another objective of this study is to identify
respondents’ perceptions of contemporary Japanese culture and investigate its impact
upon leadership preferences.
Furthermore, recently there has been a growing criticism of “leader-centric”
perspective in leadership studies (Meindl, 1995; Popper and Druyan, 2001). Yet a leader
can be ineffective “if followers do not accept and commit themselves” (Erez and Earley,
1993, p. 184). A further objective of this study is therefore to examine how Japanese
followers perceive their ideal leaders.
The research reported below therefore takes Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership
model as its basis and seeks to explore the suitability of this for followers in Japan. In
addressing this, suitability consideration is given also to the extent to which Japanese
contemporary culture has changed, given that movement in culture towards a
more “Western” model might influence the acceptability of differing leadership styles.
These aims can be summarized in three research questions:
RQ1. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers regarding contemporary
culture?
RQ2. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers towards Bass and Avolio’s
full-range leadership model?
RQ3. Are there aspects of leadership not covered by Bass and Avolio’s full-range
leadership model, which can be defined as culture-specific conceptualizations
of Japanese leadership?

Methods
An exploratory approach was employed to look at Japanese followers perceptions of
leadership and culture. Data collection consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was conducted
by semi-structured interviews with 12 Japanese subjects (seven males and five
females), average age was 32.5. A random sampling technique was used. Participants
were Japanese employees who recognize themselves as followers working under
Japanese leaders, drawn from a cross-section of industries in Japan. All interviews
initially asked three broad questions: “How do you recognize Japanese leadership?,”
“What kind of leader do you prefer to work with?,” and “How do you recognize
Japanese culture?” The order of subsequent questions varied from interview to
LODJ interview, exploring themes developed in response to these questions, although the last
28,6 one always enquired as to respondents’ perceptions of Bass and Avolio’s (1997)
full-range leadership styles.
Data from Phase 1 were analyzed by “Template analysis” (King, 1998, 2006). A
“template” is basically a list of codes, which can be determined both based upon
existing literature/theory, and amended or added to as data are collected (King, 1998).
512 This method can be employed to analyse any form of textual data, and matched the
epistemological position of the current study, which seeks to discover the underlying
perceptions of Japanese followers by using a priori codes, reflecting areas highlighted
in advance as important in relation to the research questions and from relevant
literature (King, 2006). The initial template contained codes for “Japanese culture,”
“Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership styles,” and “Japanese leadership styles.” It
was modified in the light of ongoing analysis through “insertion” (King, 1998) by
which the researchers identified new issues related to each research question (but not
covered by existing codes).
Phase 2 was conducted by questionnaire with 57 Japanese subjects (38 males and 19
females; the average age was 33.1). Again, a random sampling frame was adopted with
respondents drawn from a range of industries. The questionnaire contained 15
questions (constructed from the findings of Phase 1, which was illustrated in the
finalized template; Figure 1) which enquired as to perceptions of actual and preferred
leadership (including Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model) and of Japanese
culture. Examples of questions are included in the results below.
Phase 2 was analyzed by “Content analysis” which is ideal for condensing textual
materials by identifying their structural properties (Thomas, 2004). Content analyses
were conducted with both “assumed categories” (based upon existing literature), and
“inferred categories” (drawn from the text analyzed) (Insch et al., 1997). Each item was
assigned to a category where it fitted best, following the “single classification” rule
(Harris, 2001; Weber, 1990). All interviews and questionnaires were conducted in
Japanese, and translated into English by the authors.

Results of interviews (Phase 1)

The results of the 12 interviews are summarized in the finalized template (Figure 1).
The main categories are Japanese culture, Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership
model, and Japanese leadership styles, which tie into the research questions outlined
above. Each of these is described below.

Changes in Japanese culture

When interviews mentioned any concepts to relevant “Japanese culture,” authors
added these, as new codes under it, and here, male chauvinism, collectivism, seniority,
and cultural changes were classified as the level-two codes. Cultural changes was
further expanded with additional codes that explained the nature of changes observed
under the first three codes (Figure 1).
Six interviewees implied that Japanese culture and management systems have been
changing due to internationalisation, the burst of the bubble economy, and the Asian
financial crisis. They identified a change from male chauvinism to more gender
equality, as evidenced in the growth in numbers of female employees in all kinds of
 Leadership
preferences
in Japan

513

Figure 1.
Finalized template

work places in Japan. Two (male) interviewees did suggest, however, that from their
perspective male chauvinism was still present.
Two interviewees indicated that collectivism was part of Japanese culture. In
contrast, two interviewees suggested there had been change from collectivism to
individualism:
I don’t think the idea of Japanese collectivism is entirely wrong. But these days, we rather try
to make the individualist society and therefore in my company, at least, we don’t do “making
collusive agreements in a group” or “excluding those who stand out from a group” any more
(Male, 33).
Finally, whilst two interviewees saw seniority as a continuing aspect of Japanese work
culture, five indicated that meritocracy was on the increase:
Japanese culture has been changed. For example, a well-known concept of “seniority” has
already been replaced by the Western “meritocracy.”.In this situation, people gradually
realize that Japanese typical notions of “teamwork” or “shared fate” don’t really make sense
any more (Male, 36).
LODJ Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model
28,6 In the template under the category of “Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership styles,”
nine sub-categories were identified, based upon Bass and Avolio’s (1997) theoretical
framework (Figure 1), and 11 out of the 12 interviewees[1] provided their opinions on
these.
Firstly, although idealized influence attributed is one of the five transformational
514 leadership styles which are supposed to be the most effective in enhancing
performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), there were only two interviewees who described
these leaders as effective. Nine interviewees expressed negative responses towards this
concept:
This kind of leader must have too much confidence in himself, and sounds like a hot-blooded
man. I want my leader to be cool and modest, who can listen humbly to the voice of followers
(Female, 28).
Six interviewees expressed a desire for leaders who exhibit idealized influence
behaviors. They liked the idea that such a leader emphasizes the importance of a
collective sense of mission, and considers the consequences of decisions. However, five
interviewees showed negative reactions, suggesting that the most important thing in
business is “results.”
Again, although a transformational leadership styles, inspirational motivation was
endorsed by only three interviewees. Others suggested that a leader who talks
optimistically about future was no longer effective after the burst of the Japanese
economy. They explained that what followers need from a leader today is proper risk
management and contingency plans, rather than “everything will be all right!”
A leader who adopts intellectual stimulation was seen positively by all interviewees,
in the sense that such leaders can solve the problems and, as a consequence, gains
followers’ trust:
I really appreciate it if my leader can suggest the new and “step-up” ways of looking at how to
complete tasks. With his help, I’m sure that I can become a key player in the near future, who
can analyse tasks/problems from various perspectives (Female, 28).
Individualized consideration was supported by seven interviewees. Such leaders were
identified as effective as companies increasingly focus on individual competences,
following the growth of meritocracy in Japan. The remaining interviewees were
concerned that group targets might not be met if concentration was on individual
needs.
Contingent reward, a transactional leadership style, supposed to be less effective
than the five transformational leadership styles in motivating followers to perform
higher levels of performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), was nevertheless supported by
eight interviewees. They argued that the relationship between rewards and
performance this represents was likely to enhance motivation:
Especially, for competent followers, this type of leader can be quite effective. It seems that the
more you work, the more you get, which is the easiest and straightforward rule for followers
to pursue (Male, 36).
For management-by-exception active, apart from one interviewee claiming this was
indispensable, the remainder did not endorse it. They noted that although they
understand that such a style is sometimes necessary, these leaders often cause a tense
atmosphere in the office and decrease followers’ motivation. Similarly, Leadership
management-by-exception passive was not endorsed by any interviewees at all, and, preferences
all interviewees clearly expressed negative reactions towards a laissez-faire approach.
in Japan
Japanese leadership styles
In discussing their perceptions of actual Japanese leadership styles, interviewees 515
mentioned, directive leadership, participative leadership, social activities outside work,
and overtime-work (Figure 1). Two interviewees explained that their leaders are
directive and give followers specific orders, whereas three interviewees mentioned
participative leadership. Two saw this as leaders consulting with followers and
listening to their ideas. One claimed that this style might cause a problem if it led to
leaders avoiding making their own decisions. “Social activities outside work” was
identified as significant by eight interviewees. Seven respondents claimed that these
activities were beneficial, since they allowed followers to know their leaders better, and
exchange information with them. Overtime-work was mentioned by six interviewees.
All seemed to accept that there was a certain degree of “overtime-work” in Japanese
companies, although some interviewees suggested that certain leadership styles could
impact on the length of overtime-work. For example, one interviewee who described his
current leader as directive explained that his leader reduced the amount of
overtime-work by giving followers direct orders. Another pointed out that her leader’s
behavior increases the length of her overtime-work. Since, this leader always stayed
late in the office, it was hard for them to go home even having finished their own work.
She explained that, in the end, there is no motivation for followers to work efficiently,
because they felt that they had to stay in the office until their leader left.
Turning to preferred leadership styles, respondents identified protective leadership,
network leadership and gender equality. Protective leadership was mentioned by four
interviewees whose ideal leader was able to stand up for and protect followers from
senior managers. Network leadership was referred to by three interviewees who
expected a leader to know how to develop followers’ career-path by influencing those in
power:
My ideal leader is one who has a good network in the company and uses it for his own
followers, because the leader’s network and connection are very critical for us. Even for being
picked as a member of the in-house training course conducted twice a year at a nice country
cottage, we need to have a leader’s reference, and the selection process depends on it (Female,
32).
Gender equality was mentioned by three interviewees. Two of them saw this as fitting
current Japanese society where the number of female employees has increased, and
said that they preferred leaders who give followers a chance regardless of gender.
However, one interviewee claimed that adoption of gender equality had been
superficial, since the idea had been brought by American consultancy companies
without any adjustments for Japan.

Results of questionnaires (Phase 2)

The results of questionnaire are presented below, employing the same categories,
linked to the research questions, employed above.
LODJ Changes in Japanese culture
28,6 The results of a question asking whether respondents found cultural convergence
between Japanese and Western cultures due to globalization/internationalisation
indicate that 30 respondents (52.6 percent) felt that it had, 24 (42.1 percent) felt that it
had not, and three (5.3 percent) were “undecided.” Interestingly, most of those who saw
this happening commented that convergence was particularly occurring in the
516 Japanese business context:
Whether we wish it or not, cultural integration/convergence, particularly in the work place
exists already. My company has already adopted the idea of “Meritocracy”; so we can no
longer rely on our traditional principles of “Amae”[2] (Male, 39).
Similarly, those who felt convergence had not occurred, pointed out that cultural
stability occurred outside work, suggesting that whilst in business there might be
convergence, nothing had really changed, especially in Japanese home life.
The next question was related to the cultural changes in the Japan identified in
Phase 1. About 41 respondents (71.9 percent) indicated that they felt change to “Gender
equality” had occurred. Whilst this indicates that the majority of respondents agreed
on the advancement of women into business, comments brought out its downside too.
Three respondents particularly mentioned the poor support systems for women. More
than half of the respondents (34; 59.6 percent) agreed that change from collectivism to
individualism was occurring. Comments indicated that this might be a result of the
uptake of American management practices. Finally, 40 respondents (70.2 percent)
recognized the shift from seniority to meritocracy, seeing this as largely a result of the
economic pressures in Japan.

Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model

Respondents were also asked an open question: “What type of leader(s) do you prefer to
work with?” About 51 respondents provided usable responses. Initially these were
compared through content analyses with nine “assumed categories” drawn from Bass
and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model. As shown in Table II, a total of 28
units were classified into these categories. Frequency counts show that individualized
consideration is most preferred (by 11 of the 51 respondents). Intellectual stimulation
has seven positive respondents, followed by contingent reward with five.
Management-by-exception passive and laissez-faire received no support.

Leadership theory Assumed categories Frequency

Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range 1. Idealized influence attributed 1

leadership model 2. Idealized influence behavior 1
3. Inspirational motivation 1
4. Intellectual stimulation 7
5. Individualized consideration 11
6. Contingent reward 5
Table II. 7. Management-by-exception active 2
Content analysis with 13 8. Management-by-exception passive 0
assumed categories 9. Laissez-Faire 0
Respondents were also asked to indicate their preferences for Bass and Avolio’s (1997) Leadership
full-range leadership model directly. The results show that two transformational preferences
leadership styles, idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation, were not
strongly endorsed (Figure 2). For the former, only 16 respondents (28.1 percent) in Japan
preferred it, and comments show that Japanese followers reacted negatively towards
the notions of power and the good of the group at the center of this style. Only 22
respondents (38.6 percent) preferred inspirational motivation. Comments indicated 517
that, as in Phase 1, this was because Japanese followers stopped being positive about
leaders’ optimism following the burst of the economy.
One of the transactional leadership styles, contingent reward is notable. This is
supposed to be less effective than transformational leadership styles in motivating
followers to achieve higher levels of performance, but was actually endorsed more than
idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, or inspirational motivation
(Figure 2). About 34 respondents (59.6 percent) preferred contingent reward.
Comments suggested that this “classic concept” is easy for followers to understand as
it allows for “give and take [and] the more you work, the more you get.”
Finally, laissez-faire was not endorsed by any respondents at all (Figure 2). All
comments pointed out the negative aspects of this leadership approach.

Japanese leadership styles

Again actual and preferred leadership styles are considered.
Regarding the perceptions of actual leadership styles, responses to “What kind of
leadership styles does your leader use at work?” were examined. About 49 out of 57
respondents provided usable responses. Nine inferred categories were identified as a
result of the content analysis (Table III summarizes these and provides examples of
each). The most frequently-mentioned style is participative leadership which is
followed by directive leadership. Third is authoritarian leadership, and fourth is
protective leadership. Bargaining and laissez-faire come next, followed by supportive
leadership. Least mentioned are punctual and egocentric leadership.
The results of a question: “Does your current leader emphasise ‘Male chauvinism’
‘Collectivism’ and ‘Seniority’ at work?” (trends identified in Phase 1) revealed that the
majority though not for “Male chauvinism” (36 respondents; 63.2 percent) and

Figure 2.
Endorsement of Japanese
subjects (N ¼ 57) for each
leadership style
LODJ
Frequency Inferred
28,6 counts categories Units of analysis: phrase (frequency counts)

11 Participative Participative leadership (6)

In my case (i.e. equity dealer/securities), everybody
works individually for own benefit, which however
518 also brings the profits to the company. Therefore, my
leader observes every move that we make and gives
us advice based upon his experience
Consultative leadership (4)
My leader basically consults us “Do you have an idea
how to do this?” and allocates tasks to each of us.
Then, he will get all of our jobs together later. He is
never an authoritarian type
My leader always asks me in the first place that
“I want to do it in this way. What do you think?” So,
instead of forcing us to follow his order, he asks
followers’ opinions and takes them into
consideration. For example, when we had to make
the company’s brochure, he asked me that “I want
you to make this, so can you make a draft to show me
your idea?” Then, when I finished making the
abridged version, he gave me further advice and
support. Every time when we start the new project,
my leader consults followers in order to get various
ideas, before taking actions
Communicative leadership (1)
8 Directive Directive leadership (7)
Commanding leadership (1)
7 Authoritarian Authoritarian leadership (7)
My leader is funny and well-educated, but once it
comes to work, he is a quite authoritarian leader
He is quite authoritarian and has got a one-sided
view and never listens to his followers’ opinions. But
according to him, he wants us to “report, contact, and
consult” with him more
6 Protective Protective (5)
My leader has a strong sense of responsibility, and
when he believes his followers are correct, he even
goes against those in power
If something goes wrong, my leader tries to negotiate
with senior people for protecting us
Covering up (1)
5 Bargaining Bargaining (5)
My leader firstly asks me “This is the next task
which I want you to do. The due date is this and that.
Is it possible for you?” If I feel I can make it, I say
“yes” but if not then say “No, it seems difficult.” In
the latter case, we re-arrange the deadline or change
the condition, and once we both agree on the new
Table III. terms I start working on this task
Content analysis with 5 Laissez-faire Laissez-faire (4)
inferred categories (continued)
Frequency Inferred
Leadership
counts categories Units of analysis: phrase (frequency counts) preferences
For example, when we had to make a poster for some
in Japan
event, my leader completely left us alone, but once
the layout came up and everything was nearly
finished, he suddenly spoiled it by saying “It’s not
good. Do it again!”
519
Non-responsible (1)
He tried to turn his failure/mistakes on his followers
and blames us
3 Supportive Supportive (2)
Friendly (1)
2 Punctual Punctual (2)
2 Egocentric Egocentric (1)
Self-righteous (1) Table III.

“Seniority” (38 respondents; 66.6 percent), but there was less consistency for
“Collectivism” with 23 (40.4 percent) suggesting this has occurred but 28 (49.1 percent)
suggesting not. It seems that Japanese followers believe that their leaders are basing
judgments more upon their abilities, competences ad performance rather than gender
differences or age.
Two questions were particularly prepared for observing respondents’ perceptions
of protective and network leadership styles (identified from Phase 1). About 48 usable
responses (84.2 percent) were obtained. About 47 respondents (97.9 percent) indicted
that protective leadership and 41 respondents (85.4 percent) indicted that network
leadership was important or very important. Thus, these concepts are also positively
perceived here as significant elements of an ideal leadership style in Japan.
Respondents were also asked to what extent they had social activities with their
current leaders outside work (identified again in Phase 1). The results indicate that the
average number of “after-five” activities with their leaders was 1.2 times a month.
Similarly, for social activities at weekends, such as golf and dinner, the average
frequency was only 0.3 times a month. A subsequent question then asked if
respondents agreed that there would be benefits from spending time with their leaders,
and although the frequency of “after-five” was low, 39 respondents (68.4 percent)
reported that they believed this time was worthwhile. Most saw this as an opportunity
to exchange ideas with leaders, which made their jobs easier.
For “overtime-work” (identified as significant in Phase 1), results indicate that
respondents worked overtime on average 3.9 days a week and that on these days they
worked an average of 2.64 additional hours (49 respondents). Respondents seemed to
accept this, with 36 (63.2 percent) answering that they did not expect their leaders to
help with or reduce their overtime-work, indicating that, although they have an
enormous amount of overtime-work, they believe they are responsible for completing
the tasks they have been set.
In the content analysis of the question concerning respondents’ leadership
preferences identified above, units which could not be classified into the assumed
categories based on Bass and Avolio’s model were classified into ten inferred categories:
LODJ liberal, trust, punctual, participative, network, supportive, directive, protective,
28,6 after-five, and achievement-oriented leadership (see Table IV for counts and
examples). Most of these, e.g. liberal (gender equality), network, protective, after-five
(social activities outside work) were already identified in Phase 1, and their significance
is enhanced by their further identification here. Furthermore, directive, supportive,
participative, and achievement-oriented are the styles which have already been
520 conceptualized within House’s (1971) path-goal leadership theory. These ten leadership
styles could not be found within Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model, and therefore have the
potential to supplement or extend this in identifying Japanese culture-specific preferred
leadership styles.

Discussion
Findings from both interviews (Phase 1) and questionnaires (Phase 2) are considered in
response to the research question below.
RQ1. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers regarding contemporary culture?
The major finding from both phases regarding Japanese culture is recognition of
cultural change by Japanese employees in terms of “Male chauvinism to gender
equality,” “Collectivism to Individualism,” and “Seniority to Meritocracy.” These shifts
from the traditional pattern of management systems are supported by other recent
publications (Ornatowski, 1998; Shibata, 2000; Watanabe, 2003). It is notable, however,
that these changes appear more prevalent in respondents’ workplaces than they are in
their wider lives.
The shift from male chauvinism to gender equality can be allied with equal
opportunities legislation which came into force in 1985. Since, there has been a growing
number of female employees in Japan (JIWE, 2003). Despite the positive response,
two interviewees did suggest that equal opportunities tend to be offered only in certain
industries. It has also been claimed that equal opportunities legislation requires
improvement, since gender disparities have widened as a result of an increase in
non-full time workers (Keizer, 2005). Furthermore, questionnaire comments claimed
that female support systems such as “maternity leave” and “child-care leave” are
insufficient. It should nevertheless be noted that the followers’ expectation for “gender
equality” must also be high, as this an aspect of their preferred leadership styles
identified in the interviews (Figure 1).
As for the change from collectivism to individualism, the results of the questionnaires
report that most respondents (59.6 percent) recognized this shift, and nearly half
(49.1 percent) agreed that their leader no longer emphasized collectivism. Respondents
who disagreed with this used the proverbs, “a tall tree catches much wind” and “the nail
that sticks out will get-hammered” to illustrate the risks of standing out as an individual,
yet the majority commented that, in contemporary business, a shift towards
individualism, and a focus on skills and competences, has been welcomed.
Change from seniority to meritocracy was supported by most respondents
(70.2 percent), and two-thirds (66.7 percent) described their current leaders as not
emphasizing seniority. Other publications (Fukuda, 1999; Keizer, 2005; Watanabe,
1997) have recognized such a switch. Two respondents claimed that the change to
meritocracy is partly because Japanese people have increased their “labor mobility,”[3]
and are more willing to switch jobs/companies in order to obtain higher responsibilities
and status.
Inferred categories Frequency Examples
Leadership
preferences
Liberal leadership 11 Leader who focuses on each of our competences
regardless of gender and gives us equal chance
in Japan
Leader who can judge followers’ competence
regardless of our age or background
Leader who is fair, liberal, and employs meritocracy
at work (Actually, leader in my current office is such
521
a person, who always evaluates followers’
achievements in a liberal interpretation.) I have to
say that conservative leaders are no longer effective
in Japan
Leader who emphasizes meritocracy rather than
seniority
Trust leadership 9 I want my leader to do what he/she says that he/she
will do
Leader who proves what he/she says by actions
rather than being just glib talker (leaders should be
true to their words.)
Leader who makes actions in consistent with what
he/she says (I sometimes meet leaders who are just
talking big, which is the worst.)
Leader who has not only idea but also ability to make
it real
Punctual leadership 8 Leader who finishes everything on time
Leader who shows up to all project meetings on time
Leader who sets to work on schedule and also
expects his/her followers to do same (so that we can
all work smoothly and decrease our overtime-work
as result)
Leader who is punctual (In Japanese companies, we
cannot decide anything without permission of those
in power. So, if my leader is not punctual, it really
wastes on my time to just wait for his signature.)
Participative leadership 7 Leader who can listen receptively to what others say
Leader who makes it easy to exchange my ideas with
him/her (not a one-way but an interactive two-way
communication)
Leader who consults with me for the way to carry out
assignments
Leader who asks his/her followers their suggestions
before taking actions alone (I do not like the leader
who is complacent.)
Network leadership 6 Leader who has influence over those in power
(especially those who can decide my promotion)
Leader who reports my achievements to my
co-workers and other leaders
Leader who provides his/her network/connections
for building followers’ careers
Supportive leadership 6 Leader who is friendly and has good sense of humor Table IV.
Leader who can show us kind consideration Content analysis with
(continued) inferred categories
LODJ Inferred categories
28,6
Directive leadership
522
Protective leadership
After-five leadership
Achievement-oriented leadership
Table IV.
Frequency Examples
Leader who supports and advises me when I face
problems
5 Leader who gives me clear indications/orders
I think that, compared with leader who does not do
anything, leader who gives certain instructions can
increase the followers’ performance
Leader who tells me clearly what needs to be done
and when it needs to be done
4 Leader who takes care of us and protects us from
those in power when we make any mistakes
The leader who takes positive attitude towards
protecting his/her followers at critical moment
Leader who protects me from those in power at
critical moment (For example, my current leader
once tried to encourage me by saying “Don’t worry.
Everything will be fine. Even in the worst case, I’m
the one who will be fired, but not you.” I was
impressed by this comment.)
3 Leader who tries to socialize with his/her followers
by organizing drinks
Leader who tries to communicate with his/her
followers at social meetings after work (so that
he/she can know me better
Leader who gives me good chance to sell my ideas to
him/her on “after-five” occasions (It would be nice to
be able to talk about my project to my leader over
drinks
2 Leader who gives me opportunities that are
challenging
Leader who allows me to challenge a lot of things

RQ2. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers towards Bass and Avolio’s
full-range leadership model?
Interview results suggest that Japanese followers prefer intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, and contingent reward, to idealized influence attributed
or inspirational motivation. This was reinforced by the findings of the questionnaire
(Table II).
For intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration which belong to
transformational leadership and are argued as amongst the most effective styles for
influencing performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), comments indicate that Japanese
followers do prefer these leaders who spare time to be positively involved in followers’
tasks/problems. However, Japanese followers did not prefer idealized influence
attributed and inspirational motivation which are also part of transformational
leadership and supposed to be effective in engaging higher levels of performance.
Idealized influence attributed was not endorsed, because such leaders were seen as
emphasizing their power and pride, and a collectivist approach. Inspirational
motivation was not preferred, because people were skeptical of optimistic leaders,
especially after the burst of the bubble economy.
 On the other hand, contingent reward which belongs to transactional leadership Leadership
(Bass and Avolio, 1997) was highly accepted here, as it was more endorsed than preferences
idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behaviours and inspirational
motivation. An explanation can be found in the respondents’ comments which in Japan
suggest a link between contingent reward and the recent change from seniority to
meritocracy in Japanese management. Meritocracy, it seems, creates a suitable
atmosphere for leaders who adopt contingent rewards and provide followers with 523
assistance in exchange for efforts, and make it clear what they can expect to receive
when goals are achieved.
As for the remaining transactional leadership styles, management-by-exception
active and management-by-exception passive, the former was endorsed slightly less
than idealized influence attributed and the latter was supported by only two
respondents. Management-by-exception active was not preferred since such leaders
tend to focus upon the followers’ mistakes. Management-by-exception passive not
endorsed because respondents felt such leaders cannot handle risk management.
Finally, it must be emphasised that laissez-faire was not supported by any
respondents in this study. Leaders who adopt laissez-faire were seen as avoiding any
kind of responsibilities, and hence were not trustworthy.
Overall, results suggest that the universality of Bass and Avoilio’s (1997) model can
be questioned. Idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation, are not
strongly endorsed, whereas contingent reward is highly supported by Japanese
followers. Hence, the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range model as a
framework can be questioned when it is applied to a Japanese context.

RQ3. Are there aspects of leadership not covered by Bass and Avolio’s full-range
leadership model, which can be defined as culture-specific conceptualizations of Japanese
leadership?
Four leadership styles (participative, supportive, directive, and achievement-oriented)
were identified (Table IV) which match “Path-goal leadership theory” (House, 1971).
This finding suggests that, in a Japanese context, not only the new leadership approach
of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) but also the situational approach of House (1971) are of
value. Furthermore, interviews (Figure 1) and questionnaires (Table IV) identified
network leadership style, protective leadership style, and gender equality as Japanese
culture-specific preferred leadership styles, and liberal, trust, punctual, network,
protective, and after-five leadership styles were all also identified as Japanese
culture-specific preferred leadership styles through the questionnaire.
The term “liberal” was introduced by a respondent describing his preferred
leadership style. He referred to it as contrasting with Japanese principles of
“conservatism”:
The leader who is fair, liberal, and employs meritocracy at work (Actually, the leader in my
current office is such a person, who always evaluates followers’ achievements in a liberal
interpretation.) I have to say that the conservative leaders are no longer effective in Japan
(Male, 28).
The cultural changes discussed above indicate a shift from traditional systems to more
liberal approaches; hence it is perhaps not surprising that liberal leadership seems to
be highly advocated by Japanese followers (being most recognized of the styles
identified in Table IV).
LODJ Trust leadership, whilst endorsed separately here, might actually underlie the
28,6 effective operation of other styles. Shamir (1995) argues that the consistent honoring of
transactional agreements builds trust which is a basis for creating transformational
leadership, and it has been suggested that perceptions of contingent reward impact on
the followers’ trust in leaders, so that transformational leader behavior is most credible
when accompanied by contingent reward (Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990;
524 Schriesheim et al., 2006). This relationship is supported by the importance placed on
contingent reward here.
Punctual leadership places importance on time. According to Ehie and Stough
(1995, p. 20) and Stalk (1988, p. 41), effective utilization of time is a strategic issue and
fundamental to effective business performance. For example, “time-based” strategies
(such as just-in time) and effective time-management are often identified major sources
of competitive advantage (Ehie and Stough, 1995; Goldman, 1992; Goldsbrough and
Deane, 1988; Oliver et al., 1998; Schonberger, 1982; Sheridan, 1991; Stalk, 1988). The
importance placed on time-management seems to have flowed into Japanese leadership
through identification punctual leadership as a preferred leadership style (Table IV).
Network and protective leadership were initially defined in the interviews (Figure 1)
and the results of the questionnaire confirmed their significance (Figure 2). Moreover,
unlike protective leadership, the concept of network leadership has already been
researched by several researchers (House, 1996; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1983;
Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981). For instance, Kotter (1982) identifies network building
as an effective management behavior; developing cooperative relations among those
people required to accomplish goals. It appears followers expect leaders to provide
such networks.
Finally, the term after-five commonly used among Japanese people as expressing
their personal time after work (Shinmura, 1998) originally derives from the traditional
working-hour system (9 am to 5 pm), and although the questionnaire results revealed
that lots of Japanese employees could not leave even after 5 pm due to their
“overtime-work,” this phrase is still used as a metaphor for free time. In this respect, 39
questionnaire respondents (68.4 percent) felt time spent “after-five” with their leaders
was beneficial through informal interaction that is not possible in the workplace.
Having a drink with leaders and colleagues is particularly well-known in Japan, and
there has even been a parodied phrase “Nommunication,” which combines the Japanese
word “Nomu (drink)” and the English word “Communication.” “Nommunication” is
common in Japan, its value is widely recognized (NHK, 2001; Rao et al., 1997) and is
further supported here.

Implications for practice

The present study provides guidelines for leaders who work in a Japanese context. The
findings indicate which leadership styles within Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range
leadership model are particularly endorsed by Japanese followers. For example,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward are
highly preferred (Figure 2; Table II), which indicates that leaders in Japan should
stimulate followers to be innovative by approaching old situations in new ways, pay
special attention to the needs of each individual follower, and reward followers for their
achievements. It seems that these concepts can be matched with the cultural changes,
i.e. from male chauvinism to gender equality, collectivism to individualism, and
seniority to meritocracy identified in this study. Thus, leaders should also understand Leadership
that these changes are likely to impact upon leadership preferences in Japan, and they preferences
should seek to adjust their styles accordingly.
in Japan
Implications for research
As noted above, compared with a number of publications examining Japanese
management practices, those looking at leadership in Japan have been relatively 525
sparse. This study indicates the importance of exploring those leadership dimensions
particularly rooted in Japan. The fact that liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective,
and after-five leadership styles were identified, which are not covered by American
leadership theories, should motivate researchers to build new Japanese culture-specific
leadership models.
Moreover, this qualitative study provides findings contradictory to Bass and
Avolio’s propositions regarding the ranking of leadership preferences within
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. These findings
need to be viewed with caution however given the small, randomly generated sample
employed here. It certainly indicates, however, the need to further test the suitability of
Bass and Avolio’s model in a Japanese context with a larger sample and the MLQ Form
5X in future research.
Finally, this research emphasizes the link between the new and traditional
leadership approaches. Overall, the finding strongly suggest that, in a Japanese
context, not only Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model but also House’s
(1971) path-goal theory might be of value in exploring Japanese leadership dimensions.

Summary
The present study considered the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range
leadership model to a Japanese context. It identified that idealized influence attributed
and inspirational motivation, were not endorsed by Japanese followers, whereas
contingent reward was highly supported. These findings contradict Bass and Avolio’s
(1997) proposition claiming that, regardless of cultures, preferences for all
transformational leadership styles are higher than those for the transactional
leadership styles. Beyond this existing framework, the study also identified a number
of leadership dimensions that appear particularly rooted in Japan, and posits that
leadership styles not covered by the full-range leadership model do exist. The results
identified liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective, and after-five leadership styles
as potential Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles. House’s (1971)
path-goal theory’s leadership styles of directive, supportive, participative, and
achievement-oriented were also identified as significant in this regard. Furthermore,
this study observed cultural changes from male chauvinism to gender equality,
collectivism to individualism, and seniority to meritocracy, which seemed to influence
leadership preferences in Japan. Overall, the present study has indicated that, based
upon and extending Bass and Avolio’s and House’s leadership theories, a new Japanese
leadership model which particularly suits Japanese followers’ leadership preferences,
reflecting the contemporary Japanese culture, should be developed.

Notes
1. Owing to time constraints, the authors could not put this question to one interviewee.
LODJ 2. According to Goldman (1992), the definition of the Japanese principles of “Amae” is the
mutual dependency or interdependency at work.
28,6
3. Actual ratio of recent “labor mobility” in Japan stays relatively still. It was approximately 28
percent in 1996, 30 percent in 1999, and 32 percent in 2002 (Yoshida, 2004).

526 References
Ajiferuke, M. and Boddewyn, J.J. (1970), “‘Culture’ and other explanatory variables in
comparative management studies”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 153-63.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership:
an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-95.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential Across a Full Range Leadership: Cases on
Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62.
Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997), “What differences in the cultural backgrounds of
partners are detrimental for international joint ventures?”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 845-64.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1996), “Is there universality in the full range model of leadership?”, International
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 16, pp. 731-55.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational
and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Sampler Set:
Technical Report, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring Key for MLQ Form 5X-Short,
2nd ed., Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Blair, J.D. and Hunt, J.G. (1986), “Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more
time: context-free and context-specific orientations in research”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 12, pp. 147-66.
Brain, K. and Lewis, D. (2004), “Exploring leadership preferences in multicultural workgroups:
an Australian case study”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25,
pp. 263-78.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Dickson, M.W. (2004), “Leadership and culture”, in Antonakis, J., Cianciolo,
A.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 249-78.
Dore, R. (1973), British Factory-Japanese Factory, Allen & Unwin, London.
Ehie, I. and Stough, S. (1995), “Cycle time reduction through various business subcycles”,
Industrial Management, Vol. 37, pp. 20-5.
Ehrhart, M.G. and Klein, K.J. (2001), “‘Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic
leadership: the influence of follower values and personality”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12,
pp. 153-79.
Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-Identity, and Work, Oxford University Press, Leadership
New York, NY.
preferences
French, H.W. (2000), “A postmodern plague ravages Japan’s workers”, New York Times,
p. 4, February. in Japan
Fukuda, T. (1999), “Nouryoku hyoukawa kigyou hattenno gennsenndearu”
“(Performance-evaluation is the key for development of firms)”, Works, Vol. 33.
Goldman, A. (1992), “Japanese managerial psychology: an analysis of cultural and organizational 527
features of ‘total quality control’”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 17-21.
Goldsbrough, P. and Deane, P. (1988), “Time is money”, Management Today, September,
pp. 132-9.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, A. (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value
Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain,
Sweden, and The Netherlands, A Currency Book, New York, NY.
Harris, H. (2001), “Content analysis of secondary data: a study of courage in managerial decision
making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 191-208.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “‘Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73,
pp. 695-702.
Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (1989), “Japanese HR management practices: separating fact from
fiction”, Personnel, Vol. 66, pp. 42-5.
Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (2002), International Management: Culture, Strategy, and
Behavior, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
House, R.J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 16, pp. 321-8.
House, R.J. (1996), “Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a performulated theory”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 323-52.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated business-unit
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 891-902.
Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990), “Champions of technological innovation”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 317-41.
Insch, G.S., Moore, J.E. and Murphy, L.D. (1997), “Content analysis in leadership research:
examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8,
pp. 1-25.
JIWE (2003), “The situation of working women (online)”, Japan Institute of Workers’ Evolution,
available at: www.jiwe.or.jp/english/situation/situation2003.html (accessed January 3,
2006).
Keizer, A.B. (2005), “The changing logic of Japanese employment practices: a firm-level analysis
of four industries”, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
King, N. (1998), “Template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Methods and
Analysis in Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 118-34.
LODJ King, N. (2006), “Template analysis (online)”, School of Human & Health Sciences, University of
Huddersfield, available at: www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/index.htm
28,6 (accessed December 24, 2006).
Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Manager, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kroll, J. (1993), “From capitalism without cost towards competitive capitalism”, Nikkei Weekly,
Vol. 25, pp. 9-10.
528 Littrell, R.F. and Valentin, L.N. (2005), “Preferred leadership behaviours: exploratory results from
Romania, Germany, and the UK”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24, pp. 421-42.
Meindl, J.R. (1995), “The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: a social construction
approach”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 329-41.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and Around Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Modic, S.J. (1987), “Myths about Japanese management”, Industry Week, October 5, pp. 49-53.
Morishima, M. (1995), “Embedding HRM in a social context”, British Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 617-40.
Murakami, Y. (1984), “The society as a pattern of civilisation”, Journal of Japanese Studies,
Vol. 10, pp. 279-364.
Nakae, C. (1970), Japanese Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
NHK (2001), “Shin nomyunikesyonn” “(The new communication over drink)”, Kurozuappu
gendai: Sararimann 21seikini ikinokore (Today’s Close-up: Business-men, Survive in the
21st Century!), Nippon Hoso Kyokai, Tokyo, (TV broadcast 24 Jan 2001).
Oliver, N., Delbridge, R. and Lowe, J. (1998), “Japanization on the shopfloor”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 20, pp. 248-60.
Ornatowski, G.R. (1998), “The end of Japanese style human resource management?”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 73-84.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1973), The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making, Tavistock, London.
Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.K. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 897-933.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.
Popper, M. and Druyan, N. (2001), “Cultural prototypes? Or leaders behaviors? A study on
workers’ perceptions of leadership in an electronics industry”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 549-58.
Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), “The impact of national culture
and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia,
Japan, and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 177-207.
Rao, A., Hashimoto, K. and Rao, A. (1997), “Universal and culturally specific aspects of
managerial influence: a study of Japanese managers”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8,
pp. 295-312.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and Leadership
synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 435-54.
preferences
Sano, Y. (1993), “Changes and continued stability in Japanese HRM systems: choice in the share
economy”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4, pp. 11-28. in Japan
Schonberger, R. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, Free Press, New York, NY.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., Zhou, X. and DeChurch, L.A. (2006), “An investigation of
path-goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of 529
analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 21-38.
Shamir, B. (1995), “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 19-47.
Sheridan, J.H. (1991), “Racing against time”, Industry Week, Vol. 240, pp. 22-8.
Shibata, H. (2000), “Transformation of the wage and performance appraisal system in a Japanese
firm”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, pp. 294-313.
Shinmura, I. (1998), Koujien, 5th ed., Iwanami-syoten, Tokyo.
Stalk, G. Jr (1988), “Time – the next source of competitive advantage”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66, pp. 41-51.
Takahashi, Y. and Murakami, C. (2004), Servant Leadership Ron (The Servant Leadership
Theory), Takarajima-sya, Tokyo.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001), “The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties
and recommendations”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 31-52.
Thomas, A.B. (2004), Research Skills for Management Studies, Routledge, London.
Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business, The Economist Press, London.
Vecchio, R.P. and Boatwright, K.J. (2002), “Preferences for idealized styles of supervision”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 327-42.
Watanabe, S. (1997), Posuto nihon keieigata: Gurobaru jinzai senryaku to ridashippu
(Post Japanese Management System: The Strategy of Global Human Resource
Management and Leadership), Nihon Roudo Kenkyu Kikou, Tokyo.
Watanabe, T. (2003), “Recent trends in Japanese human resource management: the introduction
of a system of individual and independent career choice”, Asian Business and
Management, Vol. 2, pp. 111-41.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Whitehill, J. and Arthur, M. (1964), “Cultural values and employee attitudes: United States and
Japan”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48.
Wonoroff, J. (1992), The Japanese Management Mystique, Probus Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Yokochi-Bryce, N. (1989), “Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers:
transformational and transactional”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States
International University, San Diego, CA.
Yoshida, R. (2004), “Facts and figures surrounding Japans declining fertility rate”, Japan Times,
Tokyo, June 27.

About the authors

Aya Fukushige is a graduate of Bradford University School of Management Doctoral Program.
Her research interests are in leadership, cross-cultural management and organizational
LODJ development. Aya Fukushige is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
A.Fukushige@bradford.ac.uk
28,6 David P. Spicer is Senior Lecturer in organizational change and Associate Dean for MBA
programmes at Bradford University School of Management. He holds a PhD from the University
of Plymouth, and his research interests are in organizational learning, change and development.
E-mail: D.P.Spicer@bradford.ac.uk

530

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints