A Correlational Study of Culture and Leadership Expectations in a Mexican Manufacturing Plant

Dr. Sergio Matviuk, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA ABSTRACT Existing cross-cultural leadership and management literature indicates that national culture has an impact on key management and leadership concepts and practices. However, the challenge is to determine how the relationship between these two variables occurs. This article reports the finding of an empirical study on the correlation of culture dimensions with leadership behavior expectations. The focus of the study was to explore how such correlation takes place and was conducted in a manufacturing plant in Mexico. Hofstede (1980) cultural dimensions theoretical framework and concepts of leadership prototypes (Lord et al., 1982; Lord et al., 1984) and behavior expectations (Berger et al., 1985,) were used as theoretical basis. The Values Survey Module (Hofstede, 1980) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes and Posner, 1997) were the instruments used to collect data. Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) was used to explore the correlational canons of the two variables of the study. Findings suggested that participants with low power distance, high individualism, and high uncertainty avoidance are also more likely to have low expectations regarding their leaders performance in all five leadership behaviors assessed in this study. This studys results provide insights on how culture and leadership behaviors interact and contribute to the development of a general theory about the impact of national culture on leadership behaviors expectations. INTRODUCTION Many prominent cross-cultural management and leadership researches such as Hofstede, (1980, 1984, 2001), House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta (2004), House, Hanges, Ruz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson et al. (1999), House, Wright, & Aditya, (1997) and Javidan & House (2001) have indicated that culture has an impact on leadership concepts, behaviors and styles. Laurent (1986) even quantified the phenomenon and said that culture has three times more influence on key managerial assumptions and values than any other distinguishing characteristic, such as gender, level of education, or occupation. However, Dorfman, Hanges and Brodbecks (2004) question; Does culture influence leadership, and, if so, why and how? (p. 711) still occupies the attention of cross-cultural leadership and management scholars and researchers. Findings from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, the most comprehensive cross-cultural leadership research project available in the existing literature, indicate that although we know culture does influence leadership in many areas, there are still a lot of questions about why and how variations of such an influence occurs differently from country to country (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004). This article contributes to this discussion by reporting the results of an empirical study on how particular cultural dimensions correlate with leadership behaviors expectations of employees of a manufacturing plant in Mexico. In order to explore such correlation, Hofstedes (1984) cultural dimensions were used to assess how they correlated as a set with a set of five leadership behaviors denominated as exemplary by Kouznes and Posner (1997). Due the study considered a multidimensional independent variable (culture dimensions set) and a multidimensional dependent variable (leadership behaviors expectations set), canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was used to assess the correlation between these two sets of variables. This study contributes to empirical research on the correlation of culture as a multidimensional independent variable with leadership behavior expectations as a multidimensional dependent variable and is aimed to identify how such a correlation occurs among employees of a particular manufacturing plant in Mexico. Thus, the research design used in this study may serve as a model to be replicated in other countries to determine if the cannon of correlations found through this study are also evident in other cultural contexts. From this perspective this study is exploratory in nature and constitutes the foundation for future studies and may contribute to the formulation of a general theory on how culture impact on leadership perceptions.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

14

THEORETHICAL BACKGROUND AND ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS Leadership Behavior Expectations Lord (1985) and Lord et al. (1982) developed the leadership categorization theory based on the cognitive categorization theory. The central premise of the leadership categorization theory is that perceiving someone as a leader involves a relatively simple categorization (leader/nonleader or leader/follower) of the stimulus person into already exiting categories (Lord et al., 1982, p. 104). Lord et al., (1982) and Lord et al. (1984) suggested three levels of leadership categories which are hierarchically organized. The most general level is denominated superordinate level and contains the attributes of most leaders. This category helps individuals to differentiate between leaders and nonleaders. The second level of leadership categories is denominated basic level. This level include less general information about levels allowing individuals to identify types of leaders such as military, religious, or political leaders. The least inclusive level of leadership categorization is called subordinate level. In this level of categorization, hierarchical and contextual information is included, for example to determine a differentiation by levels of management or differentiation by rank for military leaders. Lord et al.s (1982) and Lord et al.s (1984) leadership categorization theory involves the concept of leadership prototypes. When a person identifies somebody as a leader, it is because that individuals characteristics and traits match a cognitive prototype about leaders that the person has cognitively generated. A prototype is the best exemplar of a category, and a prototypical category member would possess the most representative traits or attributes of the category (Rosch, 1978). Gudykunst and Kim (1997) stated that among the traits and attributes that define a prototype are behavior expectations. Expectations are self-other relational structures that organize behaviors among interactants (Berger et al., 1985, p. 32); therefore, expectations involve peoples anticipations and predictions of others behaviors. Besides, expectations not only predict regularities of others behaviors, but they also develop preferences about how others should behave under certain circumstances. Then, leadership behavior expectations are peoples preferences about how a leader should behave in most of the situations. Based on the previous arguments, it is possible to say that the superordinate level of the cognitive prototype of leaders that people possess include the behavior expectations people hold about leaders. This means a leader can be defined by peoples ideal set of expected behaviors. Thus, those who behave in a way that matches that ideal set of expected behaviors will be considered leaders. The idea of a cognitive set of ideal behavior expectations can define leadership was very important for this study, because how it will be explained later, this study assesses leadership behavior expectations of a group of employees of a Mexican manufacturing plant by asking them to rank a number of statements about a set of leadership behaviors of an ideal leader. Leadership Behavior Expectations Assessment A review of the literature indicates there is not an instrument specifically designed to assess leadership behavior expectations. However, the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1997) is an instrument that can be used for this purpose. In the early 1980s Kouzes and Posner surveyed thousands of business and government leaders to investigate the expectations constituents have of leaders (1997, p. 19). These authors arrived at the conclusion that leadership can be defined by an observable set of practices. These authors study demonstrated patterns of critical leadership behavior which can be categorized into five categories defined by Kouzes and Posner as:
1. Challenging the Process - Searching out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve; experimenting, taking risks, and learning from the accompanying mistakes (p. 5). 2. Inspiring a Shared Vision - Envisioning an uplifting and ennobling future, and enlisting others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes, and dreams (p. 6). 3. Enabling Others to Act - Fostering collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust; strengthening people by sharing information and power and increasing their discretion and visibility (p. 6). 4. Modeling the Way - Setting the example for others by behaving in ways that are consistent with their stated values and planning small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment (p. 7). 5. Encouraging the Heart - Recognizing individual contributions to the success of every project, and celebrating team accomplishments regularly (p. 7).

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

15

These five leadership behaviors later become a part of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The LPI is an instrument used in organizational settings to provide information to individuals about their leadership behaviors (Kouzes & Posner, 1997) and also to implement programs of leadership development (Field & Herold, 1997). The LPI is used for self-assessment (people complete the questionnaire to assess their own leadership behaviors) of leaders request observers to complete the questionnaire to obtain feedback on how others perceive their leadership behaviors. Although Kouzes and Posner (1997) never mentioned the concept of leadership behavior expectations, what they did in their research was precisely to ask people what their perceptions about leadership behaviors were. When they asked participants in their research to state what they would most look for and admire in a leader, someone whose direction they would willingly follow (Kouzes & Posner, 1997, p. 20) in the context of an ideal situation, what they were doing was to identify research participants leadership behavior expectations. Leadership categorization theory provides the theoretical framework to conclude that behaviors identified by Kouzes and Posner (1997) as exemplary: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart are actually the result of and assessment of peoples leadership behavior expectations. It can be concluded then that the LPI is an instrument that can survey leadership behavior expectations; it is adapted to do so. In order to use the LPI for this study to assess leadership behavior expectations among a group of Mexican employees, the instructions of the instrument were modified. Instead of asking participants to rank themselves or an individuals leadership behaviors, participants were asked to decide how frequently an ideal leader should engage in the leadership behaviors described by the LPI. Using the LPIs originals statements and rating scale, participants are instructed to respond to the LPIs statements in terms of how they would like to see an ideal leader behave or in terms of how they think an ideal leader should behave, on most days, on most projects, and with most people. LPIs statements and scales were not modified for this study in order to maintain the integrity of the instrument. Leadership Behavior Expectations and Culture As it was mentioned in the introduction of this article, evidence on the impact of culture on leadership practices and concepts abound in the literature (Hofstede ,1980, 1984, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta , 2004; Erez & Earley,1993; Gerstner & Day, 1994; House, Hanges, Ruz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson et al., 1999; House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997; Javidan & House , 2001; Laurent,1986, Shaw, 1990). Based on this evidence it is possible to conclude that culture affect peoples leadership behavior expectations and therefore it is important to define the concept of culture. Culture and Culture Dimensions Assessment The literature offers many different definitions of culture from the perspective of several scientific disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and communication (Doney et al., 1998).. Hofstede (1984) defined culture as a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one group from those of another (p. 21). Brodbeck et al. (2000) expanded Hofstedes definition and established that programming of the mind is composed of a commonly held body of beliefs and values that define the shoulds and the oughts of life for those who hold them. This is the concept of culture that was used in this research. Although numerous cultural taxonomies have been proposed, Hofstedes (1980) Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values has notably influenced cross-cultural research. Hofstedes (1980) work is regarded as the most extensive examination of cross-national values in a managerial context (Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996, p. 66); and therefore, a key as a theoretical framework to any cross-national, cross-cultural research. Based on his research on an existing data bank composed of more than 116,000 responses to work-related values a questionnaire, Hofstede analyzed the data set by matching respondents from each country by occupation within the corporation, by age and by gender. Hofstede identified areas where respondents differed significantly. He found that respondents from different national cultures presented important differences in their responses. Based on those differences, Hofstede (1980) developed four main scales that he called dimensions of national culture which he named Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, and Masculinity. In Hofstedes (1997) words these dimensions are defined as follows:

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

16

1. Power Distance (PD) can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (p. 28). 2. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) can be defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened in unknown situations (p. 113). 3. Individualism (IDV) pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (p. 51). 4. Masculinity (MAS) pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life). Femininity, on the other side pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e., both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life) (pp. 82-83).

These theoretical dimensions later became part of The Values Survey Module (VSM), an instrument developed by Hofstede (1980) to assesses group of peoples cultural dimensions scores..The VSM robustness and validity has been tested and recognized by many researchers through the years who have independently replicated Hofstedes study by using the VSM or modified versions (Morris et al., 1993; Ralston et al., 1992; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Shackleton & Ali, 1990; Smith et al., 1989; Smith et al., 1994). The VSM version utilized in this study to assess participants cultural dimensions scores was version 1994 (VSM-94) METHODOLOGY Participants The sample population consisted of a group of 122 Mexican managers. All of the participants were employees of a company which has production plants in Mexico. One-hundred percent of the sample was in managerial positions. For the purposes of this study, all employees who were in charge of two subordinates or more were considered personnel in managerial positions. The sample included supervisors, production line supervisors, engineers, directors, and managers. Female participants constituted 33% of the group. 51% of participants were between 20 and 30 years of age, 30% were between 30 and 40 and 19% were 41 years old or older. 70% of participants had university education, Data analysis A correlational design was used in the present study to determine how the five cultural dimension subscales (assessed by VSM-94) were related as a set, to the five leadership behavior subscales (assessed by LPI). Canonical correlations analysis (CCA) was used to identify correlation between the cultural dimensions set and the leadership behaviors set. The Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for canonical correlation analysis. Five canonical functions or sets of weights were obtained in the CCA because the number of canonical functions obtainable in a given set of data is equal to the number of variables in the smaller of the two sets of variables (Pedhazur, 1982). RESULTS Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was used to examine simultaneously the relationship between the set of five cultural dimension variables and the set of five leadership behavior variables within the data collected from participants. Evaluations of canonical correlation assumptions regarding normality, linearity, within-set multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity were satisfactory. No within-set multivariate outliers were present at p < .001. Two canonical variates were obtained for each of the five canonical functions, one represents cultural dimensions and the other represents leadership behaviors. CCA computed these variates by applying weights to the scores on the ten measured variables: power distance (PD), individualism (IDV), masculinity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UA), long term orientation (LTO), challenging the process (CHALL), inspiring a shared vision (INSP), enabling others to act (ENABL), modeling the way (MODEL), and encouraging the heart (ENCOU). The results of the CCA are displayed in Table 1, which includes the standardized canonical coefficients, structure coefficients (i.e., canonical loadings), squared structure coefficients, communality coefficients, adequacy coefficients, squared canonical correlation coefficient, and redundancy coefficients for the five canonical functions. CCA indicates that relationships between the two sets of variables were significant with the first canonical functions included, 2(25) = 61. 88, p < .001. Upon removal of the first canonical function, 2 values did not remain

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

17

significant, therefore the relationship between the two sets of variables was not significant for the second, third, fourth, and fifth canonical functions. The canonical correlation coefficient for the first function was .56.
Table 1
Standardized Canonical Coefficients, Structure Coefficients, Squared Structure Coefficients, Communality Coefficients, Adequacy Coefficients, Squared Canonical Correlation Coefficient, and Redundancy Coefficients for Canonical Functions I, II, III, IV, and V for (N = 122)
Canonical Function I Variable Cultural Dimensions Set Power Distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance Long Term Orientation Adequacy Rc Redundancy Leadership Behaviors Set Challenging the Process Inspiring a Shared Vision Enabling Others to Act Modeling the Way Encouraging the Heart Adequacy Rc Redundancy 1.07 -.14 -1.02 -.57 -.13 -.40 -.49 -.85 -.71 -.64 16.0% 24.0% 72.3% 50.4% 41.0% 40.7% 31.9% 13.0% .14 -1.06 -.53 -.48 1.97 -.01 -.12 -.03 -.03 .43 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% 18.5% 4.0% 12.9% 0.5% .81 .50 .60 -1.61 .09 .51 .48 .44 -.03 .33 26.0% 23.0% 19.4% 0.1% 10.9% 15.9% 8.0% 1.3% -.94 1.72 -1.08 .27 .40 .33 .60 .00 .38 .39 10.9% 36.0% 0.0% 14.4% 15.2% 15.3% 1.7% 0.3% -1.93 1.29 .52 -.72 .32 -.68 -.38 -.28 -.59 -.37 46.2% 14.4% 7.8% 34.8% 13.7% 23.4% 0.4% 0.1% 99.2% 98.9% 99.5% 99.8% 99.2% -.59 .73 .29 .48 .01 -.56 .68 -.02 .36 .00 31.4% 46.2% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 18.1% 31.9% 5.8% -.05 -.17 -.58 .22 .66 -.26 .04 -.75 .08 .82 6.8% 0.2% 56.3% 0.6% 67.2% 26.2% 12.9% 3.4% -.20 .30 -.07 -.86 -.06 -.34 .44 -.27 -.92 .15 11.6% 19.4% 7.3% 84.6% 2.3% 25.0% 8.0% 2.0% .04 -.04 -.91 .10 -.83 -.09 .08 -.59 .12 -.54 0.8% 0.6% 34.8% 1.4% 29.2% 13.4% 1.7% 0.2% .84 .66 -.13 .05 .11 .70 .57 -.09 .03 .10 49.0% 32.5% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% 16.7% 0.4% 0.1% 99.5% 98.9% 99.2% 99.8% 99.7% Coefficient rs rs2 Canonical Function II Coefficient rs rs2 Canonical Function III Coefficient rs rs2 Canonical Function IV Coefficient rs rs2 Canonical Function V Coefficient rs rs2 h2

Note. rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared structure coefficient; h = canonical communality coefficient; Rc = squared canonical correlation coefficient

The canonical communality coefficients were 98.5% or greater for all measured variables; therefore, the canonical variates obtained in this CCA have to do with all the variables considered in this study in relation to the participants of this study. Using a cutoff structure coefficient of .30, power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance were the only variables in the cultural dimensions set that were correlated with the leadership behaviors variate in the first canonical function. In the leadership behaviors set, the variables challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart were all negatively correlated with the cultural dimensions variate. Power distance was 31.4% useful, individualism was 46.2% useful, and uncertainty avoidance was 13% useful in explaining variance in the cultural dimensions variate. Besides, challenging the process was 16% useful, inspiring a shared vision was 24% useful, enabling others to act was 72.5% useful, modeling the way was 50.4% useful, and encouraging the heart was 41% useful in explaining variance in the leadership behaviors variate. Thus, this pair of canonical variates that comprised the first canonical function suggested that participants with low power distance, high individualism, and high uncertainty avoidance are also more likely to have low expectations regarding their leaders performance in all five leadership behaviors assessed in this study. The formula that represents the results of the CCA of this canonical function is: PD + IDV + UA = CHALL INSP ENABL MODEL ENCOUR These findings confirm what literature suggests about the relationship between culture and leadership practices. Also, these results suggest that specific interactions among the dimensions of culture as the independent variable correlate with specific interactions of the dimensions of the leadership behavior expectations as the dependent variable. This suggests that culture variables cannot be considered separately but in interaction among them to gain a more comprehensive insight on how culture impacts on leadership behaviors. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES The main limitation of this study is its focus on a particular cultural group and on a particular industry. As a consequence findings cannot be generalized. Hofstede (1980) pointed out that a national culture is composed of cultural layers or subcultures, so if a better understanding of the impact of the Mexican culture on leadership behavior expectations is wanted, these study should be conducted in several locations around Mexico to compare results and see if correlational canons are similar to those found in this study.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

18

On the other hand, since this study suggests that particular canonical correlation between cultural dimensions and leadership behaviors expectations in fact exist, then this study should be replicated in different cultural contexts to see if the correlational canons remain similar when cultural environment is different. Additionally, due the complexity of culture additional culture dimensions should be included in future studies to get more comprehensive insights of the effect of culture on leadership behaviors expectations. In this regard, GLOBE projects (House et al., 2004) culture dimensions; Performance Orientation, Humane Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Assertiveness, Gender Egalitarism and Future Orientation, are recommended to be included in future studies to expand and enrich the present study. REFERENCES
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Introduction: Expectations states theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 1-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass..
Brodbeck F., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G.; Bakacsi, G..; Bendova, H.; Bodega, D.; Bodur, M.; Booth, S.; Brenk, K.; Castel, P.;Den Hartog, D.;Donnelly-Cox, G.; Gratchev, M.; Holmberg, I.; Jarmuz, S.; Correia Jesuino, J.; Jorbenads, R.; Kabasakal, H.; Keating, M.; Kipiani, G.; Konrad, E.; Koopman, P.; Kurc, A.; Leeds, C.; Lindell, M.; Maczynski, J.; Martin, G.; O'Connell, J.; Papalexandris, A.; Papalexandris, N.; Prieto, J.; Rakitski, B.; Reber, G.; Sabadin, A.; Schramm-Nielsen, J.; Schultz, M.; Sigfrids, C.; Szabo, E.; Thierry, H.; Vondrysova, M.; Weibler, J.; Wilderom, C.; Witkowski, S.; Wunderer, R. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 254-287..

Doney, P., Cannon, J., & Mullen, M. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-621. Dorfman, P., Hanges, P. & Brodbeck, F. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation. In R. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669-722). Sage: London. Erez, M., & Early, P. (1993). Culture, self-identity and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Fields, D. L., & Herold, D. M. (1997). Using the Leadership Practices Inventory to measure transformational and transactional leadership. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 569-580. Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121-134. Gudykunst, W., & Kim, K. (1997). Communicating with strangers. Boston: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Abridged edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial organizational psychology (pp. 535-625). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., and Gupta, V. Eds. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.W., Gupta, V., Den Hartog, D.N., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold. (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (pp. 171-233). Stamford, CN: JAI Press.
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Inc.. Laurent, A. (1986). Cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management. Human Resource Management, 25, 91-102.
Lord, R. G. (1985).An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions and behavioral measurement on organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 87-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions to performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Lord, R., Foti, R., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 104-121). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Morris, M., Davis, D., & Allen, J. (1993). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism, Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 65- 90. Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new product development: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing, 60, 61-72. Nicholls, C., Lane, H., & Brechu, M.(1999). Taking self-managed teams to Mexico. The Academy of Management Executive, 13, 15-27. Ottinger, D. (1990). Differences in Leadership Practices and Selected Demographic Characteristics of Women Executives in the Top Three Positions of Higher Education and Banking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, OH. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Ralston, D., Gustafsori, D., Elsass, P., Cheung, F., & Terpstra, R. (1992) Eastern values: A comparison of managers in the United States, Hong Kong, and the Peoples Republic of China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 664-671.
Rosh, E. (1978). Principles in categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schmidt, S., & Yeh, R. (1992). The structure of leader influence: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2), 251-264. Shackleton, V., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 109-118.

Shaw, J. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15, 626-645.
Smith, P. B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M. H., Peterson, M., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the generality of leadership style across cultures. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 97-110. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Misumi, J. (1994). Event management and work team effectiveness in Japan, Britain and U.S.A. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 33-43.

Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., Misumi, J., & Bond, M.H. (1992). A cross-cultural test of the Japanese PM leadership theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 5-19.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num. 1 * Summer * 2010

19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.