HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL

2019, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 91–100

https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1425587

PERSPECTIVE

Comparison of leadership styles in Confucian Asian countries

a b
Sunyoung Park , Soo Jeoung Han , Seog Joo Hwangc and Chan Kyun Parkd
a
School of Leadership and Human Resource Development, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA;
b
Organizational Performance & Workplace Learning, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA; cHR Department,
CJ America, Los Angeles, CA, USA; dSchool of Global Knowledge Administration, College of Business &
Economics, Chung-Ang University, DongJak-gu, Seoul, South Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to examine the overall impact of four Received 27 July 2017
leadership styles (charismatic, directive, participative, and suppor- Accepted 1 January 2018
tive) in four Confucian Asian countries, China, Japan, South Korea, KEYWORDS
and Singapore, by reviewing recent studies conducted in those Leadership styles; China;
countries. By reviewing 38 studies selected from 430 studies pub- Japan; South Korea;
lished between 2005 and 2016, we identify the impact of the four Singapore
leadership styles in the four Asian countries. We start with the
research question and purpose, and then propose criteria for select-
ing the relevant recent studies followed by a review of cultural
heritage and its influence on leadership in the four Asian countries.
We summarize and review the studies and, finally, discuss the
theoretical and practical contributions of this study.

Introduction
The world economy has led to fierce competition that is becoming increasingly more
complex, dynamic and uncertain for companies (Mendenhall and Osland 2012). To
survive and succeed domestically and internationally in the business jungle, globally
competent business leaders are critical for each company. With such importance on
leadership, a large body of research has focused on the impact of leadership on various
factors such as motivation, thinking, behaviours, and performance of employees
(Avolio et al. 2009; Bass 1997; Jung and Avolio 1999; Walumbwa and Lawler 2003).
Additionally, many cross-cultural leadership scholars have conducted research to iden-
tify effective leadership styles in diverse countries (Dorfman, Hanges, and Brodbeck
2004; House et al. 2004; Peus, Braun, and Knipfer 2015).
Despite the rigorous cross-cultural leadership research, there is still a significant
research gap. Although many researchers have conducted leadership studies in
Confucian Asian countries, few leadership models that are specific to this cultural
region have been developed (Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson 2003). Many of
the studies conducted in non-Western countries have examined whether certain
leadership models developed in Western cultures (e.g. transformational leadership)
could also have a positive impact in Confucian Asian cultures (Gong, Huang, and
Farh 2009; Wang et al. 2005a; Hur, Van Den Berg, and Wilderom 2011; Jung,

CONTACT Sunyoung Park spark65@lsu.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
92 S. PARK ET AL.

Yammarino, and Lee 2009; Shin and Zhou 2003). Although these studies have tested
the universal influence of certain leadership models in various cultures, they have
made little contribution to finding specific leadership models for non-Western
cultures. In addition, few studies have examined leadership across Confucian Asian
countries. Although Confucian Asian countries such as China, Japan, South Korea,
and Singapore share similar cultural values, each country may vary with regards to
effective leadership styles due to differences in social and historical backgrounds.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine the impact of specific leadership styles in four
Confucian Asian countries.
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the different leadership styles
in Confucian Asia countries. The selected leadership styles for this study are charis-
matic, directive, participative, and supportive leadership. These four leadership styles
were selected is because many cross-cultural leadership researchers have considered
these leadership styles to be important across cultures; the four leadership styles are also
included as the key concepts of several leadership training programs across the globe
(Bass and Avolio 1993; Dorfman et al. 1997). The key aspects of four leadership styles
are as below (Dorfman et al. 1997):

(1) Charismatic: inspiring and developing confidence among followers, setting chal-
lenging goals, and encouraging high expectations.
(2) Directive: clarifying performance expectations and assigning tasks.
(3) Participative: consulting with, asking for suggestions, and obtaining information
from subordinates for important decisions.
(4) Supportive: indicating concern for the welfare of subordinates; showing warmth,
respect, and trust.

The research question guiding this study is: What are the similarities and differences
in the impact of the four leadership styles among four Confucian Asian countries?
We conducted an extensive literature review to identify empirical global leadership
research. Research studies and other scholarly content were found using multiple databases,
including PsycINFO, ERIC, Sociological Abstract, and ABI/INFORM, EBSCO, Academic
Search Complete, Business Source Complete, and Google Scholar. We also carefully
examined peer-reviewed journals in leadership and human resource development
(HRD). An extensive list of relevant keywords and the following search terms were used:
name of each country (China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore) and leadership or leader style.
To be included in this study, an article had to meet three criteria: (a) published in
peer-reviewed journals in English, (b) published between 2005 (after The Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research) and 2016,
(c) empirical study (qualitative or quantitative) that involved at least one of four
leadership styles: charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive.
A total of 430 articles were retrieved from ten databases and journals using keywords
noted above: China (71 articles), Japan (114), Korea (124), and Singapore (121). These
articles were then screened using the three inclusion criteria noted above. The screening
left 38 articles in the sample for analysis. These 38 global leadership research articles
(sixteen articles for China, eight for Japan, six for Korea, and eight for Singapore) were
analysed in this study.
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 93

Confucian Asia countries and cultural values

According to the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004), the four countries studied all
belong to the Confucian Asian cluster which can be characterized as having similar
cultural values with roots in Confucianism: high power distance, collectivism, and
emphasis on harmony, modesty, humility, and loyalty (Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman
2002). One of the key Confucian principles is that people should accept the inequality
of power between group members to maintain societal stability and harmony (Wang
et al. 2005b). The focus on power inequality and harmony is the basis of high power
distance and collectivism. We argue that power distance and collectivism are particu-
larly important to people’s perceptions of effective leadership because power distance
explicitly influences the leader–follower relationship; collectivism may also affect indi-
viduals’ relationships with their leaders because it is related to values such as confor-
mity, harmony, and respect for elders and superiors (House et al. 2004).
In a high-power distance culture, the unequally distributed power is the basis of societal
order; however, in a low power distance culture, inequality tends to be low (Hofstede,
Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Thus, people with high power distance values are more likely
to accept hierarchy and control by their superiors, and are inclined to respect and obey their
leaders (Bochner and Hesketh 1994; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).
Collectivistic cultures emphasize that people should follow rules to maintain social
harmony rather than being unique, while people in individualistic cultures value recogni-
tion through personal achievements (Goncalo and Staw 2006). Thus, while people in
individualistic cultures are more likely to raise their voices in the face of opposition, those
in collectivistic cultures may consider it rude to insist on their own opinions and not to
yield to other members and especially to leaders (Goncalo and Staw 2006).
Previous research has found that charismatic, directive, and supportive leadership
styles are more effective than participative leadership style in China, Korea, and
Singapore, because of high power distance and collectivism (Dorfman et al. 1997;
Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004). Effective leaders in these
three Asian countries exert more power than followers and leaders make important
decisions without followers’ input, while taking care of followers at the same time
(Ashkanasy 2002). However, participative leadership was found to be very important in
Japan (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004; Ishida 1986; Ishikawa
2012) as Japanese employees tend to have communal relationships within their orga-
nizations. Work responsibilities of Japanese workers are not very specific and employ-
ees share broad mutual responsibility as an integral part of their work (Ishida 1986).
Thus, Japanese employees prefer equality and participation in making important
decisions among group members through mutual responsibility and shared leadership
(Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007; Dorfman et al. 1997).

Findings
Charismatic leadership
In our review, most studies indicated that charismatic leadership had a positive
influence on various outcomes across the four countries. Charismatic leadership posi-
tively affected employees’ task performance and helping behaviour in China (Casimir
94 S. PARK ET AL.

and Waldman 2007; Du and Choi 2013; Wu and Wang 2012) and their communication
processes and high income in Japan (Brocklehurst et al. 2013; Fukushige and Spicer
2007; Fukushige and Spicer 2011; Ishikawa 2012). The Korean studies showed that
charismatic leadership had a positive impact on both employees’ outcomes (e.g. orga-
nizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and absorptive capacity) and group out-
comes (e.g. team performance, group organizational citizenship behaviour, and team
cohesiveness) (Euwema, Wendt, and Van Emmerik 2007; Joo 2010; Lee, Lee, and Park
2014; Shin et al. 2016; Wendt, Euwema, and Van Emmerik 2009). In Singapore,
charismatic leadership was positively related to career success, creating vision, and
commitment (Hwang, Khatri, and Srinivas 2005; Javidan and Dastmalchian 2009;
Peus, Braun, and Knipfer 2015).
Charismatic leadership also positively influenced leaders’ perceived job performance
(such as accomplishing a great deal, getting the job done, getting work done on time,
being an effective manager overall, and producing high-quality work) in the four
countries (Hwang et al. 2015). However, charismatic leadership was found to be
associated with employees having less time for personal or family life and less chance
to work in a stress-free working environment in Japan (Fukushige and Spicer 2011).

Directive leadership
Our review showed mixed effects of directive leadership on performance outcomes
across the four countries. Hwang et al. (2015) found that directive leadership was
positively associated with leaders’ perceived job performance (e.g. accomplishing a
great deal, getting the job done and getting work done on time) in all countries
examined in this study. In addition, directive leadership showed positive relationship
with employees’ performance-oriented work goals in Japan (Fukushige and Spicer
2011). However, directive leadership had a negative influence on team outcomes such
as group organizational citizenship behaviour and team cohesiveness in Japan, Korea,
and Singapore (Euwema, Wendt, and Van Emmerik 2007; Wendt, Euwema, and Van
Emmerik 2009). Under the influence of directive leadership style, employees in these
three countries are less likely to unite to complete their common goals, have the
perception of themselves as a group, and show positive group members attitudes
(Euwema, Wendt, and Van Emmerik 2007; Wendt, Euwema, and Van Emmerik 2009).

Participative leadership
Our findings indicated that participative leadership generally had a positive impact on
both leaders and employees’ outcomes in China and Japan, but not in Korea and
Singapore.
In China, participative leadership positively affected leaders’ and employees’ job
performance, managerial effective behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviour,
organizational commitment, trust development and subordinate effectiveness in long-
term subordinate/supervisor relationships (Miao, Newman, and Huang 2014; Miao
et al. 2013; Newman, Rose, and Teo 2016; Wang 2011). Only one study showed a
non-significant impact of participative leadership (Hwang et al. 2015). Participative
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 95

leadership also positively influenced leaders’ perceived job performance (e.g. effective
management and high-quality work) in Japan (Hwang et al. 2015).

Supportive leadership
Supportive leadership was found to be generally effective in the four countries.
Supportive leadership positively affected employee creativity, psychological empow-
erment, both leaders’ and employees’ performance in China (Hwang et al. 2015; Li,
Zhao, and Begley 2015; Wang, Zhang, and Jackson 2013), team cohesiveness and
communication processes in Japan (Ishikawa 2012; Wendt, Euwema, and Van
Emmerik 2009), leaders’ job performance, employee outcomes (organizational commit-
ment, knowledge sharing, and absorptive capacity), and team outcomes (team perfor-
mance and group organizational citizenship behaviour) in Korea (Euwema, Wendt, and
Van Emmerik 2007; Hwang et al. 2015; Joo 2010; Lee, Lee, and Park 2014; Shin et al.
2016; Wendt, Euwema, and Van Emmerik 2009).
In Singapore, supportive leadership style played a positive role in enhancing group
organizational citizenship behaviour and team cohesiveness (Euwema, Wendt, and Van
Emmerik 2007; Wendt, Euwema, and Van Emmerik 2009) and in reducing employees’
daily work-family conflict (Goh, Ilies, and Wilson 2015), but did not affect leaders’
performance significantly (Hwang et al. 2015).
Based on our review, we summarized the findings of four leadership styles in four
Asian countries according to the significant effect on individual and group outcomes
(see Tables 1 and 2). The numbers in Table 1 represent the number of findings on the
impact of each leadership style. Table 2 identified specific individual and group out-
comes influenced by the leadership styles in the four countries.

Discussion and implications

This study reviewed the impact of four leadership styles (charismatic, directive, parti-
cipative, and supportive) in China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore reported in 38 articles
published between 2005 and 2016. We found that a positive impact of supportive
leadership style was discussed most frequently across all four countries. This finding
is consistent with previous findings published before 2005 (House et al. 2004), which
indicates that supportive leadership is generally still endorsed in Confucian Asian
countries. However, one study (Hwang et al. 2015) showed that supportive leadership

Table 1. Significance of leadership styles in China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

Leadership styles
Charismatic Directive Participative Supportive
Country Po Ne In Po Ne In Po Ne In Po Ne In
China 4 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 1 6 0 0
Japan 5 2 0 5 1 0 4 0 0 7 0 0
Korea 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
Singapore 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 5 0 1
Total Cases 14 2 0 8 6 0 16 0 3 24 0 1
Po: positive significance on outcomes; Ne: negative significance; In: insignificance. The numbers represent the number
of findings on the impact of each leadership style.
96 S. PARK ET AL.

Table 2. Leadership styles and outcomes in China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.
Country Leadership style Individual outcomes Group outcomes
China Charismatic Employee performancea
Helping behavioura
Leaders’ job performancea
Directive Leaders’ job performancea
Participative Citizenship behavioura
Employee performancea
Leaders’ job performancea
Managerial effective behavioura Organizational
commitmenta
Trust development and subordinate effectiveness
in subordinate/supervisor relationshipsa
Supportive Employee creativitya
Employee performancea
Psychological empowermenta
Leaders’ job performancea
Japan Charismatic High incomea Communication processesa
Leaders’ job performancea
Time for personal lifeb
Stress-free environmentb
Directive Leaders’ job performancea Team cohesivenessb
Work goalsa Group citizenship behaviourb
Participative Leaders’ job performancea
Managerial effective behavioura
Citizenship behavioura
Organizational commitmenta
Supportive Communication processesa
Team cohesivenessa
Korea Charismatic Absorptive capacitya Team cohesivenessa
Knowledge sharinga Team performance a
Organizational commitmenta Group citizenship behavioura
Leaders’ job performancea
Directive Leaders’ job performancea Team cohesiveness
Group citizenship behaviourb
Participative
Supportive Absorptive capacitya Team performance a
Knowledge sharinga Group citizenship behavioura
Leaders’ job performancea
Organizational commitmenta
Singapore Charismatic Career successa
Creating visiona
Commitmenta
Leaders’ job performancea
Directive Leaders’ job performancea Team cohesivenessb
Group citizenship behaviourb
Participative
Supportive Work-family conflictb Team cohesivenessa
Group citizenship behavioura
a
Positive effect of the leadership style); bnegative effect of the leadership style.

style was not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in Singapore.
Another interesting finding is that studies on charismatic and directive leadership styles
are becoming less popular and mostly report the negative effect of these two leadership
styles on outcomes in Japan, Korea, and Singapore (Table 1).
In addition, our review indicates that participative leadership is increasingly having a
positive impact in China. This may reveal reduced influence of Confucianism in China due to
a shift in people’s cultural values. In fact, some recent studies have suggested that the younger
Chinese generation considers participative leadership more favourably because social values
are changing and getting influenced by Western ideas (Newman, Rose, and Teo 2016).
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 97

From a practical perspective, the findings of this study can help human resource
development (HRD) practitioners design and implement better leadership development
programs. Many HRD professionals in Asian countries develop leadership training
based on research findings, most of which were conducted in Western countries.
Even some leadership programs that were designed by Western researchers and practi-
tioners have been provided for Asian managers without considering culturally preferred
leadership styles (Hwang et al. 2015). This study suggests that HRD practitioners should
revise the training content considering the specific leadership profile of the country.
They could enhance the impact of training by focusing on those leadership styles that
have a positive impact in the countries where managers work.
This study also provides insights for expatriate manager training. In a global
economy, many expatriates are assigned to work in other countries with different
cultural values and expectations towards leaders. Practitioners can design and provide
those expatriates with leadership training programmes by considering the country-
specific preferred leadership profile and customizing the training to help them adjust
their leadership styles and maximize their leadership influence in the new country
(Hwang et al. 2015). Furthermore, practitioners could support leaders to expand their
perspectives on leadership styles in a global context. Since leaders have multiple roles,
tasks, or contexts, leadership styles should change and progress to meet the expectations
of different stakeholders. Considering that leadership preferences can be modified based
on cultural values, HRD practitioners could recognize more appropriate leadership
styles and help leaders adapt to different demands in their current and future organiza-
tions, specifically, in multicultural contexts.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

There are several limitations in this study. Our findings are based on a small number of
studies published between 2005 and 2016. We found fewer than 10 studies for three of
the four countries, which limits generalizability. Preferred leadership styles in other
Asian countries may be different than our findings. We also excluded research on
transformational leadership, authentic leadership, situational leadership, and ethical
leadership. Another limitation is that we did not consider diverse factors and contexts
influencing the reported associations between the four leadership styles and perfor-
mance in organizations.
For future research, we suggest expanding the scope of our research to explore the
dynamics between the four leadership styles and other factors influencing positive
outcomes in organizations. A possible research topic could be how organizational
culture and leaders with specific styles affect organizational outcomes in different
Asian countries. Comparing the preferred leadership style in the four Asian countries
with those in the Western countries could be another topic. Any changes in power
distance and collectivism in Asia and different expectations of leadership styles across
generations could be explored as well. Finally, future studies could explore how leader-
ship style preferences interact with other psychological aspects (e.g. cultural intelligence,
emotional intelligence, and motivation) and individual characteristics (e.g. educational
level, gender, and race) to better understand leadership styles in non-Western cultures.
98 S. PARK ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Sunyoung Park http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7826-9363
Soo Jeoung Han http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3245-1191

References
Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. “Leadership in the Asian Century: Lessons from GLOBE.” International
Journal of Organizational Behavior 5 (3): 150–163.
Avolio, B. J., R. J. Reichard, S. T. Hannah, F. O. Walumbwa, and A. Chan. 2009. “A Meta-
Analytic Review of Leadership Impact Research: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Studies.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (5): 764–784. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006.
Bass, B. M. 1997. “Does the Transactional/Transformational Leadership Transcend Organizational
and National Boundaries?” American Psychologist 52: 130–139. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130.
Bass, B. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1993. “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture.”
Public Administration Quarterly 17 (1): 112–121.
Bochner, S., and B. Hesketh. 1994. “Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, and Job-Related
Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Group.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25 (2):
233–257. doi:10.1177/0022022194252005.
Brocklehurst, P., M. Nomura, T. Ozaki, J. Ferguson, and R. Matsuda. 2013. “Cultural Differences
in Clinical Leadership: A Qualitative Study Comparing the Attitudes of General Dental
Practitioners from Greater Manchester and Tokyo.” British Dental Journal 215 (10): E19–
E19. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.1096.
Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. 2007. “Shared Leadership in Teams: An
Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal
50: 1217–1234. doi:10.2307/20159921.
Casimir, G., and D. A. Waldman. 2007. “Across Cultural Comparison of the Importance of
Leadership Traits for Effective Low-Level and High-Level Leaders.” International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management 7 (1): 47–60. doi:10.1177/1470595807075171.
Dickson, M. W., D. N. Den Hartog, and J. K. Mitchelson. 2003. “Research on Leadership in a
Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership
Quarterly 14 (6): 729–768. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.002.
Dorfman, P. W., J. P. Howell, S. Hibino, J. K. Lee, U. Tate, and A. Bautista. 1997. “Leadership in
Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership
Processes across Cultures.” The Leadership Quarterly 8 (3): 233–274. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843
(97)90003-5.
Dorfman, P. W., P. J. Hanges, and F. C. Brodbeck. 2004. “Leadership and Cultural Variation: The
Identification of Culturally Endorsed Leadership Profiles.” In Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, edited by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M.
Javidan, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta, 669–719. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Du, J., and J. Choi. 2013. “Leadership Effectiveness in China: The Moderating Role of Change
Climate.” Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 41 (9): 1571–1584.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1571.
Euwema, M. C., H. Wendt, and H. Van Emmerik. 2007. “Leadership Styles and Group
Organizational Citizenship Behavior across Cultures.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28
(8): 1035–1057. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379.
Fukushige, A., and D. P. Spicer. 2007. “Leadership Preferences in Japan: An Exploratory Study.”
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28 (6): 508–530. doi:10.1108/
01437730710780967.
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 99

Fukushige, A., and D. P. Spicer. 2011. “Leadership and Followers’ Work Goals: A Comparison
between Japan and the UK.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22
(10): 2110–2134. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.580179.
Goh, Z., R. Ilies, and K. S. Wilson. 2015. “Supportive Supervisors Improve Employees’ Daily Lives:
The Role Supervisors Play in the Impact of Daily Workload on Life Satisfaction via Work–
Family Conflict.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 89: 65–73. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.009.
Goncalo, J. A., and B. M. Staw. 2006. “Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100: 96–109. doi:10.1016/j.
obhdp.2005.11.003.
Gong, Y., J. C. Huang, and J. L. Farh. 2009. “Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational
Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-Efficacy.”
Academy of Management Journal 52 (4): 765–778. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
Gupta, V., P. J. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. “Cultural Clusters: Methodology and Findings.”
Journal of World Business 37 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00070-0.
Hofstede, G., G. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software for the
Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. London: Sage publications.
Hur, Y. H., P. T. Van Den Berg, and C. P. M. Wilderom. 2011. “Transformational Leadership as
a Mediator between Emotional Intelligence and Team Outcomes.” The Leadership Quarterly
22 (4): 591–603. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.002.
Hwang, A., N. Khatri, and E. S. Srinivas. 2005. “Organizational Charisma and Vision Across
Three Countries.” Management Decision 43 (7/8): 960–974. doi:10.1108/00251740510609965.
Hwang, S. J., L. N. Quast, B. A. Center, C. T. N. Chung, H. J. Hahn, and J. Wohkittel. 2015. “The
Impact of Leadership Behaviours on Leaders’ Perceived Job Performance across Cultures:
Comparing the Role of Charismatic, Directive, Participative, and Supportive Leadership
Behaviours in the US and Four Confucian Asian Countries.” Human Resource Development
International 18 (3): 259–277. doi:10.1080/13678868.2015.1036226.
Ishida, H. 1986. “Transferability of Japanese Human Resource Management Abroad.” Human
Resource Management 25: 103–120. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X.
Ishikawa, J. 2012. “Leadership and Performance in Japanese R&D Teams.” Asia Pacific Business
Review 18 (2): 241–258. doi:10.1080/13602381.2010.532907.
Javidan, M., and A. Dastmalchian. 2009. “Managerial Implications of the GLOBE Project: A
Study of 62 Societies.” Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47 (1): 41–58. doi:10.1177/
1038411108099289.
Joo, B. K. B. 2010. “Organizational Commitment for Knowledge Workers: The Roles of Perceived
Organizational Learning Culture, Leader–Member Exchange Quality, and Turnover
Intention.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 21 (1): 69–85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031.
Jung, D., F. J. Yammarino, and J. K. Lee. 2009. “Moderating Role of Subordinates’ Attitudes on
Transformational Leadership and Effectiveness: A Multi-Cultural and Multi-Level
Perspective.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (4): 586–603. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.011.
Jung, D. I., and B. Avolio. 1999. “Effects of Leadership Style and Followers’ Cultural Values on
Performance under Different Task Structure Conditions.” Academy of Management Journal 42
(2): 208–218. doi:10.2307/257093.
Lee, J., H. Lee, and J. G. Park. 2014. “Exploring the Impact of Empowering Leadership on
Knowledge Sharing, Absorptive Capacity and Team Performance in IT Service.” Information
Technology & People 27 (3): 366–386. doi:10.1108/ITP-10-2012-0115.
Li, C., H. Zhao, and T. M. Begley. 2015. “Transformational Leadership Dimensions and
Employee Creativity in China: A Cross-Level Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 68 (6):
1149–1156. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.009.
Mendenhall, M. E., and J. Osland. 2012. Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development.
New York: Routledge.
100 S. PARK ET AL.

Miao, Q., A. Newman, G. Schwarz, and L. Xu. 2013. “Participative Leadership and The
Organizational Commitment of Civil Servants in China: The Mediating Effects of Trust in
Supervisor.” Britich Journal of Management 24 (S1): S76–S92. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12025.
Miao, Q., A. Newman, and X. Huang. 2014. “The Impact of Participative Leadership on Job
Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Distinguishing Between the Mediating
Effects of Affective and Cognitive Trust.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25 (20): 2796–2810. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.934890.
Newman, A., P. S. Rose, and S. T. Teo. 2016. “The Role of Participative Leadership and Trust-
Based Mechanisms in Eliciting Intern Performance: Evidence from China.” Human Resource
Management 55 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1002/hrm.21660.
Peus, C., S. Braun, and K. Knipfer. 2015. “On Becoming a Leader in Asia and America: Empirical
Evidence from Women Managers.” The Leadership Quarterly 26 (1): 55–67. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2014.08.004.
Shin, S. J., and J. Zhou. 2003. “Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity:
Evidence from Korea.” Academy of Management Journal 46 (6): 703–714. doi:10.2307/
30040662.
Shin, Y., W. K. Oh, C. H. S. Sim, and J. Y. Lee. 2016. “A Multilevel Study of Supportive
Leadership and Individual Work Outcomes: The Mediating Roles of Team Cooperation, Job
Satisfaction, and Team Commitment.” Journal of Applied Business Research 32 (1): 55–69.
Walumbwa, F. O., and J. J. Lawler. 2003. “Building Effective Organizations: Transformational
Leadership, Collectivist Orientation, Work-Related Attitudes and Withdrawal Behaviors in
Three Emerging Economies.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (7):
1083–1101. doi:10.1080/0958519032000114219.
Wang, H., K. S. Law, R. D. Hackett, D. Wang, and Z. X. Chen. 2005a. “Leader-Member Exchange
as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’
Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” The Academy of Management
Journal 48 (3): 420–432. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908.
Wang, J. 2011. “Understanding Managerial Effectiveness: A Chinese Perspective.” Journal of
European Industrial Training 35 (1): 6–23. doi:10.1108/03090591111095718.
Wang, J., G. G. Wang, W. E. Ruona, and J. W. Rojewski. 2005b. “Confucian Values and the
Implications for International HRD.” Human Resource Development International 8 (3): 311–
326. doi:10.1080/13678860500143285.
Wang, J. L., D. J. Zhang, and L. A. Jackson. 2013. “Influence of Self-Esteem, Locus of Control,
and Organizational Climate on Psychological Empowerment in a Sample of Chinese
Teachers.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43 (7): 1428–1435. doi:10.1111/jasp.12099.
Wendt, H., M. C. Euwema, and I. H. Van Emmerik. 2009. “Leadership and Team Cohesiveness
across Cultures.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (3): 358–370. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005.
Wu, M., and J. Wang. 2012. “Developing a Charismatic Leadership Model for Chinese
Organizations: The Mediating Role of Loyalty to Supervisors.” The International Journal of
Human Resource Management 23 (19): 4069–4084. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.703420.
Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.