Abstract

Recently, cross cultural differences, especially leadership styles that cut across

borders are being taken into consideration by a large number of organizations. The purpose

of this paper is to discuss in detail on the topic of comparisons between eastern and western

leadership styles. This paper attempts to provide insight details regarding the differences

and similarities of each of the Eastern and Western leadership styles that are implemented.

To make the comparison appear more clearly, the differences and similarities between these

two leadership styles and leaders’ characteristics are being determined in this paper. This

paper is significant to the eastern and western leaders, especially those leaders who move

across borders, to recognize these differences and similarities. This reorganization is helpful

for them so that they can try to be more flexible when they are leading. At the same time,

they can also adjust their leadership styles accordingly to increase their efficiencies and

effectiveness in cross culture leadership management. In this paper, there are certain

universal similarities and also specific differences of leadership styles and leaders’

characteristics in both the East and the West.

1
 1. Introduction

Before touching on the concept of leadership styles, there is a necessity to have

some basic understanding on leadership study. Leadership study is a multidisciplinary

academic field of study that focuses on leadership in organizational contexts and also in

human life. The study of leadership has begun since the time of Plato, Sun Tzu and

Machiavelli. At that time, the leadership study is only focused on the contemporary

academic studies. The study of leadership originates from a combination of various fields of

studies, such as the social sciences, humanities, and as well as professional and applied.

Normally, it is closely linked to the field of organizational studies.

i. What is leadership?

Leadership is noted as one of the well-documented topics in different countries.

Broadly, majority will define leadership as a process of social influence in which a person is

able to enlist the aids and supports of others in an accomplishment of a common task. In

other words, leadership is viewed as a group activity that is mainly based on social influence

and revolves around a common task. In actual fact, leadership is not as simple as the

definition by the majority. The reality of leadership is complex. Leadership is considered as

an interpersonal process that interacts and is influenced by the interpersonal factors in order

to have effects on the dynamic external environment. Traditionally, there are basically two

dimensions of leadership theory, which is authoritarian and democratic. Authoritarian

leadership is always associated with the bureaucratic organizational structure that leaders

always possess high authority. Democratic leadership is more favoured since the authority

stems from the team. The latest one is laissez-faire type of leadership by which the

individual group member is independent of the group and the leader.

Meanwhile, in terms of leadership styles, the styles and characteristics of leadership

have been analyzed by many researchers. For instance, Nicholls (1994) divided the

2
leadership styles into three, which are supervisory, strategic and inspirational. Horner (1997)

studied past and present leadership theories and categorizes the differences of motivational,

transactional, transformational, self, and team leaderships. Sheard & Kakabadse (2002)

differentiated the leadership in terms of the four stages of the team development process:

forming, storming, norming and performing.

ii. Western and Eastern perspective on leadership

By looking from both of the eastern and western perspective, leadership is seen as

the same; as a course of influencing the followers to understand and agree to the tasks that

must be accomplished and get the tasks accomplished efficiently. It is a process of assisting

followers and facilitating cumulative efforts in order to achieve a common goal. At the same

time, there are still some differences in leadership styles that exist in both the eastern and

western leadership styles. The existences of differences are caused by the uniqueness of the

eastern and western societal values, societal practices and leadership management styles.

By looking more in depth, each nation within the eastern and western worlds do have their

own uniqueness although they are considered to be located within similar geography areas.

There are lots of conflicting perceptions on the context of leadership styles that always

revolve around the cross culture concept, especially the eastern and western culture. Some

researchers and authors argued that the emergence of leadership approaches is widely

acceptable to be common across culture. In contrast, there are arguments that mentioned

about differences of leadership styles across culture. Clearly, there is validity of both of the

“universal” and “specific” perspectives in the study of leadership across culture. This finding

is well supported by the Bass’s contention (1990).

3
 2. Literature Review on Eastern Leadership

Based on the tertiary literature, Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese

Dictionary, eastern is defined as from or living in the east part of the world. In this paper,

the word of eastern specifically means the east part of the world, which is Asia, for example

China, India or ASEAN countries.

According to Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman (2002), the countries that are located in Asia

can be categorized into two clusters, which are the “South Asia” cluster and the “Confucian

Asia” cluster. The “South Asia” cluster includes India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and

Philippines. The “South Asia” cluster is applying Islamic and Hindu belief systems and is

characterized by a “community-centered spirit”. Meanwhile, the “Confucian Asia” cluster

comprises of China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The “Confucian Asia”

cluster is historically influenced by Chinese culture and emphasized more on trust and

networks. . Moreover, this “Confucian Asia” shown a malleability to adapt to a changing

world and is likely to improve rapidly over the next century (Li et al. 2001).

Under societal practices, the “South Asia” cluster is more structured and only reflects

loyalty to the in-group. The “Confucian Asia” practises a societal collectivism based on trust

and networks (Pyatt et al. 2001). The “Confucian Asia” cluster emphasized more on in-group

collectivism compare with the “South Asia” cluster. Both the power distance and humane

orientation is considered equally important in the “South Asia” cluster compare with the

“Confucian Asia”, which is only in medium category. In the “South Asia” cluster, the power

distance differences reflects the importance of social classes, whereby the high emphasize in

human orientation seems as counter-intuitive. This is believable and observable that the

members of societal groups in the “South Asia” cluster are expected to be extremely loyal in

group, but it is a necessity for them to respect other societal group members’ right in order

to maintain their independence (Gupta, Surie et al. 2002). The “South Asia” cluster

4
emphasized less on the performance orientation and gender egalitarianism whereas the

“Confucian Asia” cluster values more on uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness and power

distance but less on performance orientation, gender egalitarianism, human orientation and

in-group collectivism. The power distance will be prioritised compared to the in-group

collectivism.

In the “South Asia” cluster, leaders are defined as representatives of the higher

classes of society or organization who are in charged with looking after the interests of the

subordinates. This is because this cluster practices high power distance and in-group loyalty

and humanity. For the “Confucian Asia” cluster’s leaders, they are usually entrusted to get

on with the job on behalf of the subordinates due to the higher value placed on societal

collectivism rather than power distance. In reality, both the societal collectivism and power

distance are significant within this cluster.

Despite faltering in the latter stages of 20 th century, the economies of East and

South Asia have been unalterably developing and expanding, especially in 21 st century so

much so that many of the Asian countries are already challenging the developed economies

of the West (Lingle, 1998). The remarkably swift rise of the Asian economies is considered

as one of the truly remarkable phenomena of the 20 th century. Besides that, it is also a

burgeoning political fact that may reshape the contours of world power in 21 st century

(Manning, 2001). It is observable that the Asian nations are playing more and more vital

roles today and even in future economies, political and societal platform. All of these

evidences are proving to us that the Eastern leadership style definitely possesses certain

high-quality.

5
 3. Literature Review on Western Leadership

In an exchange of theoretical letters between Scandura & Dorfman (2004) discussed

about leadership cultural-specifics and leadership cultural-universals in a post-Global

Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) project world. From the

Western perspective on leadership, leader like Rudolph Guiliani represented the exact

western leaders’ characteristic like transformational and charismatic leader and will affect

that context on perceptions of leadership. However, it may not suitable if the western style

is applied on eastern countries.

In the other hand, Suutari & Riusala (2001) had an observation on characteristics of

the leadership styles of managers in Central Eastern Europe as experienced by Finnish

expatriates. Five of the aspects of leadership which are decision participation, autonomy

delegation, interaction facilitation, conflict management and informing could be found on

Central Eastern Europe leaders. Besides, they are active in planning, co-ordination, goal

setting, production emphasis and also criticizing and role clarification behavior. Suutari and

Riusala also reported that a preference for individual rather than shared responsibilities

could found out in the Central Eastern Europe cultures. Instead, they were linked to the

successful fulfillment.

Individualism-collectivism cultural is a main dimension of culture and has been

shown to be related to a wide range of social behaviors. Hofstede (1980) found a strongly

significant tendency for individualist countries to score low upon another dimension

identified by him, called power distance. High power distance nations are those in which

inequality is more tolerated and the deference received by high-status people is markedly

different from that received by those who are of lower status. He described western

countries like United States as highly individualistic, low on power distance and uncertainty

6
avoidance. Moreover, status deference tends to be smaller and people in authority are given

relatively less respect.

A study about leadership in Western and Asian countries by Dorfman et. al (1997) to

exploded the conflicting views for managers and professionals workers by empirically testing

specific hypotheses which addressed the generalizability of leadership behaviors and

processes across five nations in North America and Asia. The result showed that, leaders in

the United States tend to supportive, contingent reward, contingent punishment and

participative. High individual achievement motivation in U.S. argues for strong impacts of

charismatic leadership.

Individual such as Great Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, British Virgin Group CEO

Richard Branson, American Express chairman Ken Chenault and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs

are recognized as well known leaders in western countries and described in terms like

charismatic, enthusiastic and courageous (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Conscientiousness and

openness to experience also showed strong and consistent relationship to leadership,

although not quite as strong as extraversion.

Meanwhile, in another study using a small sample of countries, Silverthorne (2001a)

was able to gather personality data on a sample of midlevel managers in the United States,

China, and Thailand who had been identified as particularly effective or ineffective. Again,

there was partial support for simple universality, in that effective leaders in all three

countries tended to be low on neuroticism and high on extroversion. However, the

relationship between effectiveness and the remaining three personality factors varied by

culture, with high agreeableness and high conscientiousness both found in the more

effective managers in the United States and China. High openness to experience was only

significant for the effective U.S. managers.

7
 An interesting result relating to PD is that the endorsement of participative

leadership varies in different parts of the world (Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe, in press).

Empirically derived clusters of countries comprising Germanic, Anglo, and Nordic European

cultures were each particularly attuned to participative leadership. In contrast, the Middle

Eastern and East European clusters did not endorse participative leadership as strongly. This

cluster level endorsement of Participative Leadership is significantly predicted by the degree

of power distance in those clusters (Dorfman et al., 1997).

8
 4. Comparison between Eastern and Western Leadership

Leaders are the same in some ways. As we know, there must be some common

characteristics possessed among the leaders in order for them to become a leader. At the

very least, the leaders are required to be capable of handling different situations, including

emergence of sudden events, being flexible to adjust themselves in different conditions,

sociable so that they can work well with others, and be extroverts so that they can lead the

followers and the likes. Surely, the leaders, no matter the eastern or western leaders will

posses some of the similar positive or constructive characteristics.

Shaping of a leader will be influenced by the external environment factors.

Geographical location is one of the influential factors on a person’s shaping. This

geographical location will influence a lot on personality shaping, belief and value systems,

customs, thinking patterns, perception and others. With only differences of geographical

location, it will lead to many other differences such as the external environment, education

system, and morality system and many more. These additional differences are considered as

powerful influential factors in the shaping of a person. For example, Japan and Germany are

using education system as a method for them to encourage their nationals to fight for them

in World War I and II. From this, we can see that education systems can change a person

externally and internally. As a result, there are significant inevitable differences among the

East and West. In reality, it is easy to observe that there are both explicit and implicit

differences between the East and West from mindsets, mentally to costumes, physically.

The Western leaders are individual achievers that always have to have rights and

greater needs for autonomy. On the other hand, the Eastern are harmony preservers that

emphasizes on group duty. The Eastern leaders are more towards collectivism because they

believe that all of the universes are interconnected. The Western leaders are more

9
 individualistic due to the major focus on individual events.

The western leaders are “I oriented” which are more emphasized on sender-oriented

when expressing oneself. They are steadfast in expressing themselves without too much

care for others’ feelings. The eastern leaders are “we oriented” that always care for others’

feelings when expressing own self. They are more emphasized on receiver- sensitive so that

the expression will not hurt the receivers. The western leaders are more argumentative and

willing to express their disagreement verbally due to their high-context culture. They will

neither keep silent nor do nothing when they disagree on the agreement that has been

made. Furthermore, they mean what they say. They will not keep their real preferences or

choices from others by expressing the opposite. The Eastern have difficulties to say no even

they are not willing to say yes. They are from low-context cultures that do not always mean

what they say. They are more likely to express their disagreement nonverbally.

The eastern leaders are more spiritual while the western leaders are more

materialistic. Eastern leaders are considered more emotional compared to the rational and

scientific Western leaders due to the differences in religion. As we know, the East has more

religions compare to the Christianity Western, such as the Buddhism, Confucianism,

Hinduism, Islam and many others. The Western leaders are more likely to think based on

rules, laws and regulations. As a result, they are more rules based and always think and

settle a problem based on the application and abstract principals. The Eastern will consider

the context and take specific situation into account in rule interpretation. They will not fully

follow the rule and are free to adjust themselves according to certain situation.

Moreover, the eastern philosophy believes that the leader must walk behind people.

Lao Tzu mentioned that in order to lead the people, the leaders must put themselves behind

the followers. Thus when the leader is ahead then the followers will not feel hurt. They also

believe that silence is gold and prefer to be silent. On the opposite side, the Western

philosophy holds that the leaders must walk ahead of the followers. According to Xenophon,

10
leadership is done from the front. They also believe that speech is gold and are more willing

to give speeches in public.

i. Comparison of philosophical background of leadership foundations

Basically, there are three types of philosophical backgrounds of leadership foundation,

which are theory X, theory Y, theory Z. Those leaders who practice the theory X philosophy

believe that their followers are basically lazy. They tend to rely heavily on both the

contingent punishment and contingent reward during leading (Peter W. Dorman et al.

1997).    It is observable that most of the leaders that believe on theory X are from the east,

especially the “South Asia” cluster.  A large number of the “South Asia” leaders tend to use

the threat and coercion of punishment to force or push their followers to do their work. In

addition, the attractiveness of reward is also being used by them to encourage their workers

to get their jobs done. In the “South Asia” cluster, the leaders are the authority leader with

high power distance. Giving orders to the followers is a common way that is always

practiced by the leaders in the “South Asia” cluster. The leaders always apply their authority

in forcing their workers to do their jobs without giving any choice due to their belief in

theory X. 

In contrast, those leaders who practice theory Y believe that their followers will not only

perform well but also intend to increase their responsibilities and challenges under the right

conditions. Normally, the “Confucian Asia” leaders are theory Y leaders who believe in their

followers. In the “Confucian Asia” cluster, by practicing contingent reward behavior, there

will be a positive impact satisfaction of supervision and organizational commitment.

Contradictively, the contingent punishment will cause negative effects while leading. Japan

is a good exemplary country that practices contingent reward behavior with limited

contingent punishment.

11
 The “Anglo” cluster from the west comprises of United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland,

and together with the new world components such as United States, Canada, Australia, and

New Zealand (Ashkanasy, Neal M. 2002). A large number of leaders within this cluster

believe in theory Z that holds that workers are motivated by responsibility sharing and

teamwork and always seeking opportunities to participate in management. In United State,

the contingent reward behavior can increase the satisfaction with work and supervision but

the contingent punishment will decrease the role ambiguity of workers and lead to

underperformance. Thus, the leaders can lead without strict examination and extreme

guiding.  

According to Williams and Hazer (1986), leadership process is a set of leader behavior

variables that affect a follower’s job satisfaction and role ambiguity. We agree with this

statement. In our opinion, a leader’s perception and belief are also influenced by their

followers too.  According to culturally-implicit leadership theories, leadership effectiveness

perceptions are based on the cultural values and practices that extant in each society

(House et al. 1999). A leader will be influenced by the followers and the culture of the

locals.  

ii. Comparison with Hofstede’s Intercultural Dimension:

According to Professor Geert Hofstede, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University,

“Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a

nuisance at best and often a disaster" (Itim international, 2009). In his research on cultural

differences, there are five intercultural dimensions explained by Hofstede, which is power

distance orientation, social orientation, goal orientation, time orientation and uncertainty

orientation.

12
a. Power Distance Orientation

Based on Hofstede (1980), power distance orientation dimension relates to the degree

of equality or inequality between people in some particular society. Basically, inequality can

found in all societies, and it exposed itself in physical, social, material, political and legal

(Essounga, 2008). A country with a high power distance orientation both accepts and

perpetuates inequalities between people. Giving an example of such a society would be one

that follows a caste system like happened in India (Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002) and it

is hard to increase upward mobility movement.

Besides, in Eastern perspective, leaders suppose be not too close with their employees,

hence, they will keep a distance with their subordinates for the reason to be respected. A

low Power Distance indicates that a society does not emphasise differences in people,

status, power or wealth. Most of the western countries are low power distance especially in

Unites States (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, leaders in Western countries tend to maintain

closer relationship with their subordinates if compare to Asian countries’ leaders. They

usually will get close with their employees or participate in their social life. Other words to

say, they will tend to like friends. Hence, equality is seen as the collective goal of society

and upward mobility is usual phenomena.

b. Social Orientation

In social orientation, it defined as 'the extent to which individuals are integrated into

groups' (Hofstede & Peterson, 2000). It focuses on the aspect to which a community is tends

to individualism or collectivism achievement and interpersonal relationships, which means

people prefer to take care of themselves and their family, remaining emotionally

independent from groups, organization or other collectivities. A low Individualism score

points to a society that is more collectivist in nature. In such countries the ties between

13
individuals are very strong and the family is given much more weight. In such societies

members lean towards collective responsibility. In other hand individualistic countries, status

differences tend be smaller and people in authority are given relatively less respect (Smith &

Dugan, 1998). 

Based on Hofstede’s framework in international management research, United States is

the most individualistic culture, coming up with Australia and Great Britain. This indicates

that individuality and individual rights are dominant. Leaders in these societies tend to form

relationships with larger numbers of people, but with the relationships being weak. Their

ties are loose among people, family, and between coworkers. In Western leaders point of

view, successful in their life is gained by own self but give by others. For instead, the

Microsoft group CEO, Bill William Gates; American investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway,

Buffett and CEO of the Trump Organization, Donald Trump choose to donate most of their

wills to the charity funds and didn’t keep much for their next generation. This phenomenon

is seldom happen in Asian societies. In Asia such as Hong Kong, Li Ka Shing which CEO of

Hong Kong Hutchison Whampoa and Cheung Kong holding group, runs his companies

closely with his two sons and is planning to pass the leadership of his firms to them as well

(Mills ,2005).

c. Masculinity/ Femininity

This dimension pertains to the degree societies reinforce, or do not reinforce, the

traditional masculine work role model of male achievement, control, and power. A high

Masculinity score indicates that a country experiences a higher degree of gender

differentiation. In such cultures, males tend to dominate a significant portion of the society

and power structure. A low Masculinity score means a society has a lower level of

differentiation and inequity between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally

to males in all aspects of the society.

14
 In countries with a high ranking on masculinity, the leadership style is likely to be more

concerned on with task accomplishment then nurturing social relationship. The leaders will

give motivation to their subordinates based on the acquisition of money and things rather

than quality of life. Hence, the leadership is to ensure bottom-line profits in order to satisfy

the shareholders and to set demanding targets. According to the Hofstede’s research, Japan

is ranking number one which is the highest masculinity among the countries. Most of the

Latin America and some western countries such as Australia, United States, Great Britain,

Germany and Italy showed high masculinity culture in their countries. On the other hand, in

countries with more feminine cultures, the role of the leader would be to safeguard

employee well-being and to demonstrate concern for social responsibility. Most of the

Europe countries such as Denmark, Greece, Spain, Finland or Portugal; also some Asian

countries (Thailand, India, Korea Taiwan and Singapore) tend to femininity cultures.

d. Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension concerns the level of acceptance for uncertainty and ambiguity within

a society. A country with a high Uncertainty Avoidance score will have a low tolerance

towards uncertainty and ambiguity. As a result it is usually a very rule-orientated society and

follows well defined and established laws, regulations and controls. A low Uncertainty

Avoidance score points to a society that is less concerned about ambiguity and uncertainty

and has more tolerance towards variety and experimentation. Such a society is less rule-

orientated, readily accepts change and is willing to take risks.

In countries with high uncertainty avoidance, leaders will tend to use more formalization

evident in a greater amount of written rules and procedures. Apart from that, there would

be greater specialization evident in the importance attached to technical competence in the

role of staff and in defining jobs and functions. Leaders would avoid to taking risk and would

15
be motivated by stability and security. The role of leadership would be more one of

planning, organizing, coordinating and controlling.

iii. Comparison of leadership behavior and style

         In the “South Asia” cluster, the leadership style is based on style that uses the work-

centered behavior designed to ensure task accomplishment. As we know, in the “South

Asia” cluster, the power distance between the leaders and the workers is very high. A leader

is given a high degree of authority to be in charge in almost everything. Workers are only

followers that follow all of the orders that have been ordered by the leaders.  Besides that,

most of the leaders within this cluster are theory X leaders that think that their workers are

not diligent enough and are less willing to sacrifice. Since they do not fully believe in their

workers, they are not given the authority or freedom in work to make decisions or

something else.

         Paternalistic leadership is practiced in the “Confucian Asia” cluster. Paternalistic

leadership is a leadership style that uses the work-centered behavior coupled with a

protective employee centered concern. There is a continual interaction and exchange of

information between leaders and subordinates during work. This happens due to the

collectivism in-group that is practiced in the “Confucian Asia” cluster. In addition, based on

theory Y, workers within this cluster are more responsible and are more willing to sacrifice,

so they are given a certain freedom and rights by the leaders in the work environment.  

They can make certain decision or give their ideas or opinions within limits. 

         The “Anglo” cluster practices participative leadership style which allows continual

exchange of information and interaction and influence between leaders and workers.

Participative leadership style is practiced by the leaders because the workers are more

participative. Apart from that, the power distance in the west is lower compared to the east.

Authoritarian leadership that emphasizes on leader’s authority and paternalistic leadership

which only gives limited freedom to followers are not favored in the west.

16
 iv. Comparison with the Characteristic of leadership style

Leadership is the process of influencing employees to achieve the business goals. It

is typically defined by the traits, qualities and behaviours of a leader (Horner, 1997).

Basically, regarding to the literature reviews which mentioned before, the leadership in

Western countries are more varied compare to Eastern countries. Giving an example the

leadership in United States can describe as five characteristics: directive, participative,

empowering, and charismatic and celebrity (or superstar).

Basically, the characteristics of leaders in western countries such as United States

and Europe tend to be more participative and empowerment styles. They are focus on

teamwork with others. It is common in western, where it is sometimes required by law, as

happened in northern Europe especially in German. They are more openness, democratic,

consultative and horizontal leadership style. According in a research by Dickson et al.

(2003), the cultures with low power distance it tends to be more participative with their

subordinates. They give flexibility, autonomy and decision making capacity to subordinates

to set and perform towards their own goals. In contrast, the countries which with high

power distance, leadership tends to be directive in nature. Their leadership style tend to be

vertical, scope of decision making had reduced and increasing employees’ fear of

repercussions. Besides, western leaders are able to energize the people in company. This

kind of leadership named empowering leadership. Overall, eastern leadership is highly

authoritarian tone, rigid instructions and many management directives. In contrast, western

leadership is less emphasis on leader’s personality and considerable weight on leader’s style

and performance.

Charismatic leadership is stating that followers make attributes of heroic or

extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain some behaviors (Robbins &

Judge, 2009). Which means a charismatic leader is the person who looks like a leader.

17
People follow such a leader because of who he is, not because of his ability or even his

successful life. Human magnetism is the thing, and it is very different in different national

cultures. What looks like a charismatic leader to Americans may appear to be something

very different to people from other societies. Dorfman et. al (1997) stated that leadership in

western especially in United States are more to charismatic. Meanwhile, Redding (1990)

stated that the leadership among the eastern is initially transactional not charismatic.

Transactional leaders believe that people are motivated by reward or punishment. These

leaders give clear instructions to followers about what their expectations are and when

those expectations are fulfilled there are rewards in store for them and failure is severely

punished. Besides, employees need to show loyalty, diligence, conformity and behaviors that

enhance the superiors’ face. The loyalty and devotion of subordinates derives from cultural

dictates, not from an inspirational charismatic leader.

v. Leadership in Cross-Cultural Context

            There is always a challenge for leaders to lead in a contrastive environment. It is

really challenging for an eastern leader to lead in a western country. As we know, there are

a lot of differences between the east and the west, both explicit and implicit. The explicit

differences are geographical locations, working environments, cultures and customs, verbal

languages and the likes. Apart from that, the implicit differences are values, beliefs,

perceptions, leadership styles and behaviors, leaders’ and workers’ characteristics and many

more. There are many predictable challenges such as the misunderstanding conflicts as well

as quarrels and boycotts that may occur due to the large number of differences. Inevitably,

unpredictable challenges may appear at anytime such as unwanted incidents arising due to

a small matter. Thus, eastern leaders may not be able to efficiently lead in western

environments.  

On the other hand, based on the previous preview, it shows that Western leadership

tends to be much more task‐oriented, while in Eastern cultural is a much more holistic

18
model focusing on trust, harmony and interrelationships among people. For Western

leaders, the relationship is a formal one without any chance for leader and the subordinates

to be as close as friends. This will make the eastern subordinates feel the Western leader is

ego and hard to get closer. Besides, in Western leader’s point of view, each job that he or

she is scheduled and really needs to be done. Everything done is based on traditions and

what is normally done. The leader in western societies also rules through principles and laws

and not through beliefs, principles and traditions, which is different with eastern culture of

initiate in human relationship. The most important issue is eastern countries tend to use non

verbal language. The communication is dependent upon the person and the situation. Much

is communicated in what is not to say. Leaders from Western, their communication expected

to be clear and direct. They always speak straight to the point. This probably may not really

accepted by Eastern subordinates and sometimes it caused misunderstand happen between

them.

19
 5. Conclusion

Styles of leadership are totally different between Eastern and Western countries.

Culture colours the way things are done, but less so what is done. The differences in styles

most markedly reflect the stage of development of the economies and companies of Asia. As

nowadays many Eastern leaders had their education in Western countries and slowly they

absorb the western culture, the less autocratic and more participative and even empowered

style of leadership will applied by Eastern leaders. Asian leadership will come to more

resemble that of the West.

As conclusion, the Western leaders have more tough and unrelenting vulture that

makes them act less kind to their employees. The Western leaders have a stricter and

refined culture that they have lesser care for people. They believe in survival of the fittest.

They believe that in order to survive in this world, everything necessary should be done

even if it means that the rights and feelings of others will be stepped on. They also think

that they must do everything to have a higher position than other people.

On the other hand, the Asian leaders have a nicer culture because their culture is

embedded with different principles and ideas given to them by their ancestors. The Asian

leaders tend to be more human oriented and have a sense of family relation. The Asian

leaders tend to be friendly, hospitable and kind of others. They try to give a fair and warm

treatment to their employees.

There are always differences that exist in the real world no matter where a leader is.

Leaders have to face the differences positively by taking differences as a learning

opportunity to be more flexible, adaptable, and wisely.  Everyone is different in their own

way, so leaders must analyze well and wisely choose the way that are helpful for them while

leading in West. To be a successful leader no matter in West or East, the leader has and

must overcome the challenges by applying the efficient ways that suit oneself better.

20
6. References:

1. Ashkanasy,Neal M.(2002). Leadership In The Asian Century: Lesson From GLOBE,

International Journal of Organisational Behaviour , vol 5(3), pp. 150-163.

2. Bass, B. (1985), Leadership, Performance beyond Expectations , Free Press, New

York.

3. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and

managerial applications, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

4. Dorfman et al. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities

and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures, Leadership

Quarterly v8.3.233-274

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

a Cross-cultural Context: making progress, and raising new questions, Leadership

Quartely, v14.729-1768

6. Dorfman, P. W. (2003). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J.

Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research

(2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

7. Essounga, Y. N. 2008. A Cross-Cultural Theoretical Review of National Culture,

Individual Liberties and Leadership styles in the US and France. University of Texas

Pan-American.

8. Gupta, V., Hanges, P.J. & Dorfman, P. W. (2002), Cultural Clustering: Methodologies

and Findings. Journal of World Business, vol. 37, no. 1., pp. 11-15.

9. Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Sipe, M. (in press). Rationale for GLOBE statistical

analyses: Scaling of societies and testing of hypotheses. In R. J. House, P. J.

Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and

organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

21
10. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage

11. Hofstede, G. & Peterson, M. F. 2000. National values and organizational practices in

N. M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds.) op. cit. 401-405.

12. Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences. 2nd ed. CA: Sage Publications.

13. Hornby,A. (1997). Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary. 4th

edition. London, England: Oxford University Press.

14. Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: past, present and future , Team Performance

Management, v3.4.270-287.

15. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M.,

Dickson, M.W., Gupta, V. & GLOBE Associates 1999. Cultural influences on

leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE, in Advances in Global Leadership, vol.

1, W. H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner & V. Arnold (eds.), JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 171-

233.

16. Itim International. 2009. Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions. From:

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. Retrieved on: 2010-04-04

17. Li, J., Fu, P. P. & Peng, T. K.( 2001), Confucian Asia cluster: The malleability of

Confucianis— Evidence and Implications from Confucian Asia , Unpublished

manuscript.

18. Lingle, C.(1998). The rise and decline of the Asian century: False starts on the path

to the global millennium, 3rd ed., Asia 2000, Hong Kong.

19. Manning, R.( 2001), ‘The Asian Century’, Taiwan Security Research,

http://taiwansecurity.org/IS/IC-991223-Asian-Century.htm (Accessed 18/10/01).

20. Mills, D. Q. 2005. Asian and American Leadership Styles: How Are They Unique? .

Harvard Business School.

22
21. Nicholls, J. (1994). The Heart, head and Hands of Transforming Leadership ,

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, v15.6.8-15.

22. Pyatt, R., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tamaschke, R. & Grigg, T. (2001), Transitions and

traditions in Chinese family businesses: Evidence from Hong Kong and Thailand in

Advances in Human Resource Management in Asia , J. Kidd, X. Li & F. Richter (eds.),

Macmillan, New York, pp. 80-104.

23. Redding, SC. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: deGruyter.

24. Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational Bahavior, 13th ed, New Jersey,

Pearson Education Inc.

25. Scandura,T. & Dortman,P. (2004). Leadership Research in an International and

cross-cultural context, The Leadership Quarterly 15.277-307. Elsevier Inc.

26. Silverthorne, C. (2001a). Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross cultural

evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, v30.2.303–309.

27. Sheard, A.G. & Kakabadse, A.P. (2002). Key roles of the leadership landscape,

Journal of Management Psychology, v17.2.129-144.

28. Smith, P.B. & Dugan, S. 1998. Individualism: Collectivism and the Handling of

Disagreement. A 23 countries study. Int. J. of Intercultural Rel. v11. 2. 240-256.

29. Suutari, V. (1994). Leadership Ideologies among European Managers: A Comparative

Survey in a Multinational Company, Scand Journal Management, v12.4.389-409,

Great Britain, Elsevier Science Ltd.

30. Suutari,V.& Kimmo, R. (2001). Leadership styles in Central Eastern Europe:

Experiences of Finnish expatriates in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland,

Scandinavian Journal of Management 17.2001.249-280, Elsevier Science Ltd.

31. Williams, L., & Hazer, J.T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and

commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structure

equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71.219-23 1.

23
24