Human Resource Development International

ISSN: 1367-8868 (Print) 1469-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

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 U.S. and four Confucian Asian
countries

Seog Joo Hwang, Louis N. Quast, Bruce A. Center, Chu-Ting Nicole Chung,
Huh-Jung Hahn & Joseph Wohkittel

To cite this article: Seog Joo Hwang, Louis N. Quast, Bruce A. Center, Chu-Ting Nicole
Chung, Huh-Jung Hahn & Joseph 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 U.S. and four Confucian
Asian countries, Human Resource Development International, 18:3, 259-277, DOI:
10.1080/13678868.2015.1036226

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1036226

Published online: 13 May 2015. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 94 View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhrd20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 11 September 2015, At: 03:59
 Human Resource Development International, 2015
Vol. 18, No. 3, 259–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1036226

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
U.S. and four Confucian Asian countries
Seog Joo Hwanga*, Louis N. Quastb, Bruce A. Centerb, Chu-Ting Nicole Chungb,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Huh-Jung Hahnb and Joseph Wohkittel b

a
CJ America, Los Angeles, CA, USA; bCollege of Education and Human Development, University
of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA
(Received 14 August 2014; accepted 28 March 2015)

This study empirically examines how different types of leadership behaviour affect
perceived job performance of leaders in different cultures, specifically comparing the U.
S. and four Confucian Asian countries. Using a large archival database of a multisource
feedback instrument assessing leadership behaviours and overall perceived job perfor-
mance of managers in these countries, this study analyses the influence of leadership
behaviours on perceived job performance. The results suggest that charismatic and
directive leadership behaviours are positively related to perceived job performance of
leaders in all countries studied, whereas the influence of supportive leadership behaviour is
not as strong as charismatic and directive leadership behaviours. Surprisingly, participative
leadership behaviour is not associated with perceived job performance of leaders in the
countries studied except for Japan. Research implications and limitations are discussed.
Keywords: leadership; cross-cultural; managerial effectiveness; Confucian Asia

Introduction
Globalization in international business is ever increasing with growing trade and globa-
lization driving the exchange of people, information, and cultures across national borders
(Northouse 2006). However, globalization has created many challenges for Human
Resource Development (HRD) professionals. One particular challenge is the need to
best serve culturally diverse employees, customers, and competitors (House et al. 2004;
Javidan et al. 2006). Thus, organizational leaders need to have a clear understanding of
business, political, and cultural situations in other countries. Additionally, these leaders
need to understand the perspectives, values, trends, and technologies of other cultures so
they can be effective in international business climates (Adler and Bartholomew 1992).
Leadership studies have been dominated by Western researchers, and most of the
leadership theories have been developed in the U.S. (Yukl 2012). However, researchers
have noted that effective leaders must take into consideration the culture in which they
perform (Smith and Peterson 1988) because cultural characteristics such as language,
beliefs, values, and religion affect people’s behavioural and attitudinal preferences in
leadership (Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010;

*Corresponding author. Email: seogjoohwang@cj.net

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 260 S.J. Hwang et al.

House et al. 2004). To address this important issue, many cross-cultural leadership
scholars have conducted research to identify effective leadership styles in various cultures
(e.g., Ardichvili 2001; Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, and
Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004; Muczyk and Reimann 1987; Robie et al. 2001;
Silverthorne 2001).

Research problem
Despite the advances in cross-cultural leadership research, there is still a significant
research gap. Although researchers have attempted to examine leadership in non-
Western cultures, few non-Western leadership models have been developed in leadership
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

literature (Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson 2003). Likewise, although many
researchers have recently conducted leadership studies in Confucian Asian countries,
many of them have only assessed whether the leadership models developed in Western
cultures (e.g., transformational leadership) could also be applied in Confucian Asian
cultures (e.g., Gong, Huang, and Farh 2009; Hui et al. 2005; Hur, Van Den Berg, and
Wilderom 2011; Jung, Yammarino, and Lee 2009; Shin and Zhou 2003). Since these
studies have attempted to test the universality of certain leadership models across cultures,
they have made little contribution to developing non-Western leadership models. In
addition, very few studies have examined leadership across Confucian Asian countries.
Although Confucian Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea
share similar cultural values, each country may vary with regard to effective leadership
due to differences in social and historical backgrounds. In sum, there is a dearth of studies
examining specific leadership models in non-Western cultures including Confucian Asian
countries.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate what types of leadership behaviours are related
to the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. and four Confucian Asian
countries: China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Specifically, we examine the
relationship between four types of leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive, partici-
pative, and supportive – and the perceived job performance of leaders.
We first provide a literature review of previous cross-cultural leadership research and
cultural roots and values of Confucian Asian countries. Next, we provide research
hypotheses regarding ideal leadership behaviours for each country based on the literature
review. Then, research methods, including data collection and measures, are described.
After the research results are summarized, the implications, limitations, and future
research areas are discussed.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Cross-cultural leadership research
As globalization has been expanding across the nations, researchers have increasingly
recognized the importance of the cultural impact in leadership because cultural character-
istics such as language, beliefs, values, and religion affect people’s behavioural and
attitudinal preferences in leadership (Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede,
Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004). Leaders working in a foreign culture
 Human Resource Development International 261

need to understand how the host culture affects people’s behaviour and preferences
towards leadership. This understanding helps leaders adopt an optimal leadership style
and adjust their leadership behaviours to maximize their performance in the host culture
(Gregersen, Morrison, and Black 1998; Javidan et al. 2006). To address this important
issue, many scholars have conducted research to identify effective leadership styles in
various cultures. Overall, these cross-cultural leadership studies have concluded that there
are some leader behaviours that appear to be universally effective across cultures, while
other leader behaviours and preferred leadership styles vary considerably from one culture
to another.
Muczyk and Reimann (1987), for example, proposed that three leadership behaviours
are universally effective: acting with consideration, concern for production, and rewarding
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

others. However, they argue that the effectiveness of participation (i.e., the degree to
which employees are involved in work-related decisions) and direction (i.e., the amount of
follow-up or directive behaviour regarding the execution of a decision) is contingent on
culture. In an empirical study, Dorfman and colleagues (1997) compared the effectiveness
of various behaviours exhibited by leaders in Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the
United States. They found that supportive, charismatic, and contingent reward behaviours
(i.e., positive feedback and recognition for good performance) of leaders were positively
related to subordinate satisfaction and performance in all countries in their study, but the
effectiveness of participative and directive behaviours of leaders varied across countries.
For example, directive leadership behaviours showed positive effects on satisfaction and
commitment of employees in Taiwan and Mexico, while participative leadership beha-
viours only showed a positive impact in the United States and South Korea.
Another example of cross-cultural leadership research is a study conducted by
Ardichvili (2001). In his study, transformational leadership and cultural values in work-
place behaviours were measured in the post-communist and former USSR countries of
Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The study attempted to see whether
transformational leadership resulted in positive impacts across different cultures. His
study found that these four countries differed significantly in their responses to these
effective leadership attributes, and that contingent reward and individual consideration
explained the largest portion of variance in leader effectiveness in the countries studied.
Although there are several extensive cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g.,
Geletkanycz 1997; Savicki 1999; Smith and Peterson 1988), the study often considered
to be the most extensive within the domain of cross-cultural leadership research is the
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, which
examined 62 societal cultures and combined them into 10 cultural clusters (House et al.
2004). Over 10 years, GLOBE researchers collected and analysed data on cultural
dimensions and leadership attributes from over 17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures.
The results found similarities and differences in effective leadership prototypes among the
cultural clusters; in other words, people in different cultures have different ideas about the
attributes of effective leaders or leadership (House et al. 2004).

Confucian Asia cluster and its cultural values

As defined by the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004), the Confucian Asia cluster consists
of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. In exploring the
cultural context of Confucian Asia, the countries in our sample share a common set of
values and fundamental beliefs. The GLOBE study characterized the culture of Confucian
Asia as being high on performance orientation and both in-group and institutional
 262 S.J. Hwang et al.

collectivism (House et al. 2004). According to Scarborough (1998), the core values of
Chinese culture include large power distance, loyalty, collectivism centred on family, high
uncertainty avoidance, modesty and humility, fatalism, and particularistic ethics. These
common cultural values of Confucian Asian countries are rooted in Confucianism (Gupta,
Hanges, and Dorfman 2002; Scarborough 1998). Therefore, to discuss the effective
leadership prototypes in Confucian Asia culture, a brief review of Confucianism is
warranted.

Confucianism
Kong Fu Ze (551–479 BC), who was renamed ‘Confucius’ by the Jesuit missionaries, was
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

a Chinese civil servant (Hofstede and Bond 1988). As a philosopher and educator,
Confucius developed an ideology regarding proper human behaviours and relationships
in a society, which became the moral, social, and political principles for many East Asian
countries (Wang et al. 2005). One of the key principles of Confucianism is that the
stability of society is maintained by unequal relationships (i.e., hierarchy) between
members of the society (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Confucianism focuses on wuiun, the
five relationships that are proper relationships in a social hierarchy, between (1) ruler and
subject, (2) father and son, (3) husband and wife, (4) older brother and younger brother,
and (5) friend and friend (Berling 1982; Wang et al. 2005). Individuals in these relation-
ships are required to show mutual and complementary obligations; while the junior
respects and is obedient to the senior, the senior protects and takes care of the junior
(Hofstede and Bond 1988). Using these five relationships, Confucianism emphasizes that
a person should conform to his or her proper role in the social hierarchy and act
accordingly to maintain harmony in society (Berling 1982; Wang et al. 2005). This
inequality between members is the basis of high power distance in Confucian Asia
culture.
Confucianism also emphasizes developing one’s skills and the inner character of the
person through education. This is represented in Confucianism by focusing on five
virtues: ren (human benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (proper rite), zhi (wisdom), and
xin (trustworthiness) (Wang et al. 2005). Confucianism argues that conformity to social
roles and development of character can be achieved through education and reflection on
one’s actions (Berling 1982).
Another Confucian principle is its emphasis on family. From the Confucian perspec-
tive, family is a model of all social organizations (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Being a
member of a family has stronger meaning than does being an individual. Children should
learn to restrain their own interests as an individual in order to maintain the harmony of
family (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Family members should care for each other with love
and respect, and the needs of all members should be considered together within the family
(Wang et al. 2005). This collectivistic concept even extends to the state: the ruler or the
king is the father to his people and should look after their needs (Wang et al. 2005).
In sum, Confucianism provides social principles that define proper behaviours of
individuals in a social hierarchy. Moreover, Confucianism focuses on maintaining har-
mony in society by emphasizing paternalism and kinship (Xing 1995). These Confucian
principles provide a basis not only for individual behaviours and relationships but also for
many management practices and organizational culture in Confucian Asian countries
including high organizational hierarchy, respect for higher positions, loyalty to the
company, and emphasis on ceremony (Xing 1995). These practices all have their roots
in Confucian principles. In the next section, we review cultural values in Confucian Asian
 Human Resource Development International 263

countries, specifically power distance and collectivism, and how these cultural values may
influence effective leadership in the countries.

Power distance in the Confucian Asia cluster

Confucian Asia countries are characterized by researchers as being high on performance
orientation, power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede 1980;
House et al. 2004; Scarborough 1998). We argue that among the various cultural values,
power distance and collectivism are particularly relevant to the issue of leadership because
power distance explicitly affects the relationship between superiors and followers.
Collectivism is also related to values such as conformity, harmony, and respect for elders
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

and superiors so that it may shape individuals’ relationships with their leaders (House
et al. 2004). Power distance refers to ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally’ (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010, 61). Power distance determines how
much hierarchical inequality people will accept and consider as proper (Bochner and
Hesketh 1994). In a low power distance culture, such as the U.S., inequality is viewed as
something that should be minimized, whereas it is considered as the basis of societal order
in a high power distance culture such as Korea (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).
Thus, people with high power distance tend to accept hierarchical inequality and control
by their superiors (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010), so employees in high power
distance cultures tend to respect and obey their leaders (Bochner and Hesketh 1994;
Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).
Individuals in high power distance cultures, therefore, tend to prefer paternalistic
leadership whereas individuals in low power distance cultures tend to view participative
or consultative leadership as a desired leadership style (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov
2010). They also found that employees in high power distance cultures would describe
their bosses as more autocratic and paternalistic than would employees in low power
distance cultures. In addition, individuals in high power distance cultures would be more
task-oriented and less people-oriented because the role of a manager in a high power
distance organization is to initiate structure (e.g., tell people what to do rather than ask for
their views) (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).

Collectivism in the Confucian Asia cluster

Confucian Asian countries also tend to show high collectivism (Hofstede 1980; House
et al. 2004; Scarborough 1998). Collectivistic society is where ‘people from birth onward
are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s life time con-
tinue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’ (Hofstede, Hofstede, and
Minkov 2010, 92). People in collectivistic cultures view themselves as interdependent
within the group to which they belong, whereas people in individualistic cultures are
viewed as independent and unique (Goncalo and Staw 2006).
Because the individual’s identity is closely connected to the group in collectivistic
cultures, an individual tends to promote the group’s goal rather than to pursue his or her
own interests (Davidson et al. 1976). Collectivism emphasizes following shared rules to
maintain group harmony rather than standing out through personal achievements
(Goncalo and Staw 2006). In contrast, people in individualistic cultures tend to view
their identity as unique and independent. Because individualism stresses one’s self and
one’s unique needs and desires, people in individualistic cultures strive for recognition by
 264 S.J. Hwang et al.

achieving beyond the norms of the group (Goncalo and Staw 2006). Thus, uniqueness can
be viewed as deviance from the standard in collectivistic cultures, whereas conformity is
often considered negatively in individualistic cultures (Kim and Markus 1999). Thus,
while people in individualistic cultures tend to resist social pressure and maintain their
opinions in the face of opposition, people in collectivistic cultures might consider it rude
and inconsiderate not to yield to others (Goncalo and Staw 2006).

Effective leadership behaviours in the U.S.

According to the GLOBE research, the U.S. belongs to the Anglo cluster with other
countries such as Canada, England, Australia, Ireland, South Africa (white sample), and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

New Zealand, all of which were once British colonies (House et al. 2004). The Anglo
cluster scores high on values of performance orientation, individualism, humane orienta-
tion, and family collectivism, but scores low on power distance (Ashkanasy, Trevor-
Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). The ideal leadership prototype in this cluster is a highly
charismatic, participative, and team-oriented leader, and humane-oriented leadership is
considered to be important but not as important as the other three (House et al. 2004).
Charismatic leadership behaviours include being visionary and inspirational (Ashkanasy,
Trevor-Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Participative leadership values a subordinate’s
active participation with the leader in the decision-making process (Ashkanasy, Trevor-
Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Since the Anglo cluster shows low power distance and high
individualism, people in this cluster place emphasis on autonomy and being able to voice
their opinions; thus, it is very important for a leader to allow members to participate when
making important decisions (Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Team-
oriented leadership includes directive leader behaviours such as organizing, utilizing team
structures, and managing and controlling others’ work (House et al. 2004). Humane
leadership means being caring and considerate of others. Considering that the emphasis
is on team-oriented leadership and humane leadership together, an effective leader in this
cluster assigns the work while being considerate of team members (Ashkanasy, Trevor-
Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002; House et al. 2004).
In the current study, four types of leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive,
participative, and supportive – are used. Cross-cultural leadership researchers have used
these leadership behaviours and considered them to be important across cultures; the four
types of leadership behaviours are also taught in many leadership training programmes
across the globe (Bass and Avolio 1993; Dorfman and Howell 1988; Dorfman et al. 1997;
Farh, Podsakoff, and Cheng 1987). In addition, we used and measured the four types of
leadership behaviours rather than the six GLOBE leadership dimensions because the
GLOBE leadership dimensions included not only behavioural items but also leaders’
personal attributes. This study focuses solely on leader behaviours and their impact on
performance. As discussed, the team-oriented leadership dimension used in the GLOBE
research is closely related to the directive leadership behaviour. Similarly, the humane
leadership dimension is closely linked to the supportive leadership behaviour.
Based on the above discussion, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a: Charismatic leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.
Hypothesis 1b: Directive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.
 Human Resource Development International 265

Hypothesis 1c: Supportive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.
Hypothesis 1d: Participative leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship
with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.

Effective leadership behaviours in Confucian Asia cluster

The GLOBE researchers noted that people from the Confucian Asia cluster tend to describe
effective leaders as individuals who care about their teams and members (i.e., supportive),
but make independent decisions without the input of others (i.e., less participative). For
example, Trompenaars (1993) found that the Chinese tend to prefer leaders who act more as
a ‘father figure’ than as a task driver and prefer that leaders take care of employees in a
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

paternalistic way. Dorfman and colleague (1997) also found supportive leadership beha-
viours were effective in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In addition, it was found that
charismatic leadership was universally effective for all 62 countries studied in the GLOBE
study (House et al. 2004), which included the six Confucian Asian countries. Team-oriented
and human-oriented leadership (House et al. 2004) were also positively related to effective
leadership in both the Confucian Asia cluster and the Anglo cluster.
Given the high power distance in Confucian Asian countries, it is not surprising that
participative leadership was not viewed as effective in this cluster (House et al. 2004;
Dorfman et al. 1997). As previously discussed, people with high power distance tend to
accept hierarchical inequality and respect their leaders (Bochner and Hesketh 1994; Hofstede,
Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Therefore, a leader in the Confucian Asia cluster is regarded as
having more power than subordinates and is responsible for taking care of subordinates as
opposed to collaborating with them. Furthermore, the leader is trusted to make important
decisions without his or her subordinates (Ashkanasy 2002). Thus, subordinates’ participation
is less emphasized.
Regarding power distance and participative leadership, it is important to note that Japan has
a different culture from the other Confucian Asian countries. Although Japan shares some
similar cultural characteristics with the Confucian Asia cluster, Japanese people tend to value
participative leadership more than do people in other Confucian countries (Dorfman et al.
1997; Graen 2006). In addition, Japan has moderate power distance and collectivism compared
to other countries in the Confucian Asia cluster (Gerstner and Day 1994; House et al. 2004).
One of the key reasons is the communal relationships among employees in Japanese organiza-
tions. According to Ishida (1986), in Japanese companies, the roles and responsibilities of
individuals are vague and narrow, whereas mutual responsibility between employees is broad.
Furthermore, Japanese employees tend to value mutual cooperation and are willing to take on
tasks outside of their formal roles. This cooperation and mutual responsibility based on
communal relationships enable Japanese employees to take more ownership in their work
and flexibly respond to changes in external environments (Ishida 1986).
In terms of leadership, this communal relationship between employees can be
viewed as shared leadership, which is defined as the distribution of leadership
influence among multiple members (Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007). Ishikawa
(2012) showed that sharing of leadership among group members in a Japanese
organization was positively related to group performance. Since Japanese employees
share mutual responsibility for their work, Japanese employees value the equality of
group members and their participation in important decisions (Dorfman et al. 1997).
As a result, participative leadership behaviour is considered to be effective leadership
in Japan.
 266 S.J. Hwang et al.

Based on the discussion above, we present the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Charismatic leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South
Korea.
Hypothesis 2b: Directive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South
Korea.
Hypothesis 2c: Supportive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South
Korea.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Hypothesis 2d:Participative leadership behaviour will have an insignificant relation-

ship with the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Singapore, and South
Korea.
Hypothesis 2e:Participative leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with
the perceived job performance of leaders in Japan.

Research model
Regarding the selected five constructs, including (a) charismatic leadership behaviour, (b)
directive leadership behaviour, (c) supportive leadership behaviour, (d) participative
leadership behaviour, and (e) perceived job performance, conceptual frameworks are
illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These frameworks were derived from earlier theories
on effective leadership in different cultural context.

Method
Participants
A total of 22,204 middle-level managers from five countries were included in this study.
The specific countries and their sample sizes are the U.S. (n = 18,750), China (n = 913),

Figure 1. Effective leadership in the U.S.

 Human Resource Development International 267
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Figure 2. Effective leadership in China, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea.

Japan (n = 2,104), Singapore (n = 234), and South Korea (n = 202). The mean age for the
overall sample was 43.7 years (SD = 11.2). All managers were employed by mid- to large-
sized organizations and were participants in a variety of management-development initia-
tives using multisource feedback.
The data used in this study were drawn from a large archival database of multisource
feedback results. The instrument was administered and processed by Korn Ferry’s
Leadership and Talent Consulting global practice group (Formerly PDI Ninth House).
Korn Ferry has stripped the data of any personal or organization-specific identifiers, and
made the data available to the Hellervik/PDI Endowed Chair in Leadership and Adult
Career Development in the College of Education and Human Development at the
University of Minnesota. One author of this manuscript was and still is employed by
Korn Ferry.1 From the database, this study used data collected between 2003 and 2008.

Measures
All study measures used items from The PROFILOR® for Managers, a multisource
feedback instrument assessing participants’ managerial behaviours, technical expertise,
and overall perceived job performance. A total of 135 items were rated by self, super-
visors, peers, and direct reports (PDI Ninth House 2004). Each item was rated on a five-
point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) not at all to (5) to a very great extent (Hezlett
et al. 2006).The behavioural items included in The PROFILOR® for Managers were
selected after careful psychometric testing and are representative of the domain of
managerial effectiveness (PDI Ninth House 2004). Data used in this study comprise a
convenience sample. This sample was selected for use in this study because of three
characteristics: it is large, it is multinational, and the instrument used was designed to
capture the domain of effective leadership behaviours.
Only ratings provided by each participant’s supervisor were used in this study. The
decision to use only data provided by the supervisors was based on two factors: (a) this
rater category yielded the highest internal consistency coefficient and (b) inter-rater
reliability coefficients were only moderate, making it difficult to use ratings from multiple
 268 S.J. Hwang et al.

rater categories. The median internal consistency reliability for the instrument is 0.83 for
supervisor ratings (Hezlett et al. 2006).

Leadership behaviours
Scales measuring the four types of leadership behaviour – charismatic, directive, partici-
pative, and supportive – were created. The original items in The PROFILOR® for
Managers were developed without specific consideration of the four types of leadership
behaviour examined in this study. Therefore, four distinct scales were created for use in
this study representing each of the leadership behaviours: charismatic, directive, partici-
pative, and supportive. The procedure used to develop these scales was based on the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

principles of Q methodology (Stephenson 1953). In the procedure used for this study, a
panel of three subject matter experts (SMEs) with advanced degrees and work experience
in the fields of HRD and industrial-organization psychology individually assessed the 135
behavioural items in The PROFILOR® for Managers. Each SME was tasked with
identifying behaviours representative of the four types of leadership behaviour using
explicit definitions provided by previous research (Dorfman et al. 1997). Therefore, the
criterion for selection was the SME’s subjective judgment of the extent to which a
behavioural item was representative of one of the four types of leadership behaviour as
delineated below:

(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 panel then convened and compared their ratings. Items that were unanimously
agreed upon by all panel members as being representative of one of the four types of
leadership behaviour were included in the scales. Behaviours not unanimously agreed
upon were not included in the scales. The behavioural items selected and reliability
coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for each scale are listed below.
Charismatic leadership behaviour was measured using five items. The reliability of the
scale was α = .80. Items were averaged to form a charismatic leadership behaviour scale.
Items include fosters the development of a common vision, inspires people to excel, gives
compelling reasons for ideas, sets high personal standards of performance, and links the
team’s mission to that of the broader organization.
Directive leadership behaviour was measured using four items. The reliability of the
scale was α = .85. Items were averaged to form a directive leadership behaviour scale.
Items include conveys clear expectations for assignment, clarifies roles and responsibil-
ities with team members, provides clear direction and defines priorities for the team, and
identifies specific action steps and accountabilities.
Participative leadership behaviour was measured using four items. The reliability of
the scale was α = .79. Items were averaged to form a participative leadership behaviour
scale. Items include involves others in shaping plans and decisions that affect them, seeks
appropriate input before making decisions, encourages others to express their views –
even contrary ones, and listens carefully to input.
 Human Resource Development International 269

Supportive leadership behaviour was measured using three items. The reliability of
the scale was α = .70. Items were averaged to form a supportive leadership behaviour
scale. Items include is accessible to provide assistance and support as necessary,
conveys trust in people’s competence to do their jobs, and values the contributions of
all team members.

Technical expertise
Technical expertise was measured as a control variable using a scale in The PROFILOR®
for Managers. Technical expertise means the job-related knowledge and skills leaders
possess (Collins and Raven 1969). Research has found that technical expertise positively
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

affects subordinate performance and satisfaction, which may link to the performance of
leaders (Podsakoff, Todor, and Schuler 1983). Therefore, we controlled for technical
expertise because technically competent managers may be more highly rated on perceived
job performance than less-competent ones, regardless of their leadership behaviours. The
technical expertise scale had been developed and validated through careful psychometric
testing by the original developers of The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House
2004). The reliability of the scale was α = .79. Four items were averaged to form a
technical expertise scale. Items include knows the job, is regarded as an expert, keeps up-
to-date on professional/technical developments, and stays informed about industry prac-
tices and new developments.

Perceived job performance

Perceived job performance, an outcome variable in this study, was measured using a scale
in The PROFILOR® for Managers. Perceived job performance scale had been developed
and validated by the original developers of The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth
House 2004). The reliability of the scale was α = .87. Five items were averaged to form a
perceived job performance scale. Items include accomplishes a great deal, gets the job
done, gets work done on time, is an effective manager overall, and produces high-quality
work.

Data analysis
A three-step procedure was employed to analyse the data. First, correlations between
variables and descriptive statistics of variables including mean and standard deviation
were calculated. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed. Since
the four leadership behaviour scales were created by the SME panel using the items in
The PROFILOR® for Managers based on the definition of each leadership behaviour
provided by previous literature (Dorfman et al. 1997), we needed to evaluate and
ensure the four leadership behaviour scales were distinct but correlated factors. CFA
was carried out using LISREL 8.8. After reviewing the initial CFA results, items that
either failed to load on their designated scale or loaded substantially on more than one
scale were considered statistically problematic and discarded. After discarding those
items, the final CFA model was generated, and scale scores were created by summing
the individual behaviours belonging in each scale.
Third, to test the hypotheses in this study, multiple regression analyses were run
on the variables using SPSS 20.0. This was done to investigate the relationships
between the four types of leader behaviour and perceived job performance while
 270 S.J. Hwang et al.

controlling for technical expertise. This process was repeated independently for each
of the countries explored in this study. We chose multiple regression analysis over
hierarchical regression analysis because we wanted to put all four leadership beha-
viour variables into the analysis equation at the same time. Once all the variables
were entered in the analysis equation, a hierarchical regression analysis produced
identical results as did the multiple regression analysis. We believe a leader shows
all four types of leadership behaviours to a certain extent while the strength of each
leadership behaviour varies depending on leaders. Therefore, it was not the focus of
this study to examine leadership effectiveness with certain sets of leadership beha-
viours while excluding some other leadership behaviours through a hierarchical
regression analysis.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Results
The four leadership scales were correlated with each other ranging from r = .55 to r = .75
(see Table 1). Each of the four leadership scales showed a higher correlation with
perceived job performance than with technical expertise.
Correlations between directive and charismatic leadership scales and perceived job
performance were higher than those observed between the participative and supportive
leadership scales and perceived job performance.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the CFA performed on the behaviours constituting
the four leadership scales and the technical expertise scale. The final CFA model with 20
items produced a good model fit, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .98, GFI = .94. The item loadings
are between .60 and .81.
Table 3 shows the results of the multiple regression analyses. For the U.S., we
hypothesized that charismatic, directive, and participative leadership behaviours would
have positive relationships with the perceived job performance of leaders (1a through
1c). Additionally, we hypothesized that supportive leadership behaviour would have a
slightly positive relationship with perceived job performance (1d). As expected,
charismatic and directive leadership behaviours were shown to have positive relation-
ships with perceived job performance in the U.S. Hypotheses 1a and 1b were
supported. Supportive leadership behaviour was shown to have a slightly positive
relationship with perceived job performance in the U.S. Thus, hypothesis 1c was
supported. However, participative leadership behaviour did not have a significant
relationship with perceived job performance. Thus, hypothesis 1d was not supported.
This result regarding participative leader behaviour was not consistent with the find-
ings of previous cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House
et al. 2004), which argued that participative leader behaviours would contribute to
effective leadership in the U.S.
For Confucian Asian countries, it was hypothesized that charismatic, directive, and
supportive leadership behaviours would have positive relationships with the perceived
job performance of leaders in all four countries. However, it was expected that
participative leadership behaviour would have a positive relationship with the per-
ceived performance of leaders in Japan only, and not in China, Singapore, and South
Korea. As expected, charismatic and directive leader behaviours were shown to have
positive relationships with perceived job performance in all four Confucian Asia
countries. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. Supportive leadership behaviour
was positively related to perceived job performance in China, Japan, and South
Korea. However, the impact of supportive leadership behaviour was insignificant in
 Human Resource Development International 271

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among four leadership factors, technical expertise
(TE), and perceived job performance (PJP).

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Charismatic 3.93 .578 1.000

Directive 3.88 .629 .747*** 1.000
Participative 3.91 .589 .682*** .610*** 1.000
Supportive 4.10 .574 .628*** .554*** .720*** 1.000
TE 4.03 .642 .565*** .500*** .421*** .379*** 1.000
PJP 4.19 .612 .722*** .708*** .568*** .546*** .571*** 1.000
Note: *** = p < .001.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Table 2. The results of confirmatory factor analysis on four leadership dimensions and technical
expertise.

Item description Directive Supportive Charismatic Participative Expertise

Conveys clear expectations for 0.71 – – – –

assignments
Provides clear direction and defines 0.81 – – – –
priorities for the team
Clarifies roles and responsibilities 0.77 – – – –
with team members
Identifies specific action steps and 0.74 – – – –
accountabilities
Conveys trust in people’s competence – 0.72 – – –
to do their jobs
Values the contributions of all team – 0.66 – – –
members
Is accessible to provide assistance/ – 0.60 – – –
support as necessary
Fosters the development of a common – – 0.68 – –
vision
Inspires people to excel – – 0.73 – –
Gives compelling reasons for ideas – – 0.67 – –
Sets high personal standards of – – 0.61 – –
performance
Links the team’s mission to that of the – – 0.66 – –
broader organization
Involves others in shaping plans and – – – 0.73 –
decisions that affect them
Seeks appropriate input before – – – 0.67 –
making decisions
Encourages others to express their – – – 0.69 –
views, even contrary ones
Listens carefully to input – – – 0.66 –
Knows the job – – – – 0.63
Is regarded as an expert – – – – 0.67
Keeps up-to-date on professional/ – – – – 0.76
technical developments
Stays informed about industry – – – – 0.76
practices and new developments
 272 S.J. Hwang et al.

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analyses.

Tech
N R2 Charismatic Directive Participative Supportive Exp

U.S. 18,750 0.623 .308*** .335*** −.002 .101*** .184***

China 913 0.676 .130** .304** .041 .199** .269*
Japan 2104 0.665 .303* .205* .149* .027* .306*
Singapore 234 0.614 .251* .337** .006 −.003 .234**
South Korea 202 0.629 .118* .451** .073 .190* .308**
Note: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Singapore. Thus, hypothesis 2c was only partially supported. The impact of partici-
pative leadership behaviour was not significant in China, Singapore, and South Korea.
In contrast, as expected, participative leadership behaviour showed a positive relation-
ship with perceived job performance in Japan. Thus, hypotheses 2d and 2e were
supported.

Discussion
This study was undertaken to examine the extent to which four types of leadership
behaviour – charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive – were related to
perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S., China, Japan, Singapore, and
South Korea. First, we found that both charismatic leadership behaviour and directive
leadership behaviour showed a positive impact on perceived job performance of
leaders in all countries in this study. This is consistent with previous cross-cultural
studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House et al. 2004), noting that charismatic and
directive leadership behaviours seem to be universally effective across cultures.
Second, supportive leadership behaviour was significantly related to perceived job
performance of leaders in all countries studied except Singapore. This result partially
supports the findings from prior cross-cultural research regarding the universal effec-
tiveness of supportive leadership behaviour. Third, we found that participative leader-
ship behaviour was not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in
China, Singapore, South Korea, and the U.S., whereas it showed a positive impact on
perceived job performance of leaders in Japan. A non-significant relationship between
participative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance in China, Singapore,
and South Korea was expected based on prior research. Previous research also pre-
dicted a positive impact of participative leadership behaviour on the leadership effec-
tiveness in Japan. The insignificant relationship between participative leader behaviour
and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. was contrary to previous
leadership research.

Theoretical contributions
With regard to theoretical contributions, first, this study is one of only a few studies that
have attempted to empirically examine the effectiveness of different leadership behaviours
across non-Western countries. Moreover, many previous leadership studies conducted in
Confucian Asian countries have only assessed whether a leadership model developed in a
Western culture (e.g., transformational leadership) could be applied to Confucian Asia
 Human Resource Development International 273

culture. This study examined which types of leadership behaviour are related to the
leadership effectiveness in certain countries (i.e., the country-specific leadership profile).
Specifically, we examined four leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive, participa-
tive, and supportive – and their influence on the perceived job performance of leaders in
the U.S., China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.
Second, some of the study findings were contrary to previous research. Supportive
leadership behaviour was not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders
in Singapore. Participative leadership behaviour was also not significantly related to
perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. The insignificant relationship between
participative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.
was very surprising considering the many previous cross-cultural studies showing the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

effectiveness of participative leadership behaviour in the Anglo cluster and the large
sample size of the U.S. (18,750 participants) in this study. How can we explain this
finding? One possible speculation regarding the insignificant relationship between parti-
cipative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. might
be that although people tend to prefer participative leadership and attribute it to effective
leadership (House et al. 2004), in real organizational situations, they may still respect
leaders’ authority and accept leaders’ non-participative (i.e., authoritative) behaviours.
When the GLOBE researchers (House et al. 2004) examined the cultural values (‘Should
Be’) and cultural practices (‘As Is’), the cultural value (‘Should Be’) of power distance
was lower than the cultural practice (‘As Is’) of power distance in all cultural clusters
examined in the GLOBE research. This might suggest that while people desire the lower
level of power distance, the relationships they have with their supervisors are still based
on hierarchy (House et al. 2004). Thus, although people tend to relate participative
leadership behaviour to effective leadership in the U.S., these workers may work well
with, and in fact produce, performance results for leaders who are not very participative.
Another possible explanation is that the impact of leadership behaviours (including
participative leadership behaviour) could be contingent on other contextual factors,
including the industry, the level of the leader’s position, age, or the interactions between
different types of leadership behaviours. All such factors deserve additional exploration in
future research.
Third, if we take a deeper look at the results, we find interesting differences
regarding the effective leadership prototype in each country. While charismatic and
directive leadership behaviours had a positive relationship with perceived job perfor-
mance of leaders in all of the countries studied, and supportive leadership behaviour
showed positive impact in all of the countries except Singapore, the types of leader-
ship behaviour that were more important than others varied depending on the country.
Among the four types of leadership behaviour, directive leadership behaviour was the
most strongly associated with perceived job performance in most of the countries
studied. In particular, directive leadership behaviour showed the strongest relationship
with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S., China, Singapore, and
South Korea.
Next to directive leadership behaviour, the leadership behaviour showing a strong
relationship to job performance was either charismatic or supportive leadership beha-
viour. In the U.S. and Singapore, charismatic leadership behaviour showed the second
strongest influence on perceived job performance of leaders. In the U.S., supportive
leadership behaviour was the next leadership behaviour in terms of leadership effec-
tiveness. In Singapore, the impact of supportive leadership became insignificant. In
contrast, in China and South Korea, supportive leadership behaviour showed the
 274 S.J. Hwang et al.

second strongest association with perceived job performance, followed by charismatic

leadership behaviour. Japan was the only country where charismatic leadership beha-
viour showed the strongest association with job performance, followed by directive
leadership behaviours. Supportive leadership behaviours had a positive but weaker
relationship with the perceived job performance compared to charismatic and directive
leadership behaviours in Japan. More importantly, participative leadership behaviour
was positively related to perceived job performance leaders only in Japan among the
countries studied.

Practical implications
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

This study provides several implications for practice in the HRD field. First, the findings
of this study can provide important direction to HRD practitioners who manage or
facilitate leadership development initiatives. Many HRD practitioners in Asian countries
design leadership development programmes based on findings from the best available
leadership research, which has often been conducted in Western cultures. Even worse,
HRD practitioners in many countries may purchase a standard or generic leadership
training programme originally designed and developed in other countries (often in the
U.S.) and provide it to their local managers with little modification to its content. This
study suggests that practitioners may need to customize the training content according to
the country-specific leadership profile, so that people can maximize the impact of training
by investing more time and effort on those leadership behaviours identified as the most
effective in the countries where the managers are to be working.
Additionally, the study findings provide insights for HRD professionals preparing
expatriate training programmes. In the global economy, many companies send their
managers abroad as expatriates. In these cases, companies often provide training to
expatriate candidates before they go abroad to help them adjust to, and perform effectively
in, the foreign country. Using the findings of this study, HRD professionals can design
and deliver expatriate training programmes specifically aligned with the unique cultural
preferences for leadership style in the target countries.

Limitations and future study

There are several limitations in this study. One limitation of this study is that all analyses
were performed on the direct supervisor’s ratings of the leadership behaviours of the
managers studied, not on ratings completed by the direct reports of these managers.
Different categories of raters (e.g., peers, direct reports) may see different aspects of the
behaviours exhibited by the managers studied, given the nature of their varying interac-
tions with the individual being rated. The direct reports may have different evaluations of
the leadership behaviours of the participating managers compared to those of the man-
agers’ supervisors, which may alter the relationship between the leadership behaviours
and the perceived job performance of leaders. Future study is required to investigate the
relationships using the perspectives of different raters.
The second limitation of this study was the use of a cross-sectional design. The cross-
sectional design cannot examine the causal relationship between constructs. Thus, we
could not test whether a certain style of leadership behaviours increased the perceived job
performance of leaders, nor could we test whether improved job performance of leaders
positively caused leaders to behave in certain ways. It may be that leaders with high
perceived job performance would have more confidence and/or flexibility to invest their
 Human Resource Development International 275

time in managing and supporting their followers. To examine the causal relationship
between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness, researchers need to use different
research methods such as a longitudinal analysis.
Another limitation is the make-up of the participants in the study. The sample
consisted mainly of managers from mid- to large-sized organizations, often multinational
corporations, who were frequent users of the services of a private-sector consultancy. It
could be problematic to generalize the results to other organizational contexts such as
smaller local organizations, entrepreneurial start-up organizations, or non-profit organiza-
tions. Such organizations were not represented in this sample. Therefore, future research
needs to investigate the cross-cultural leadership issue using samples from various types
of organizations in different countries.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Last, there is another direction for future research. Some of the findings of this study
were contrary to previous research. For example, participative leadership behaviour was
not associated with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. Thus, the
effectiveness of participative leadership in the U.S. and other Anglo cluster countries
should be examined in future studies since many previous cross-cultural studies have
shown the effectiveness of participative leadership behaviour in the Anglo cluster. It may
be that people say they want participative leadership but respond most to more directive
and non-participative approaches. Studies clearly differentiating between the desired
leadership style and actual effective leadership will be necessary. Similarly, supportive
leadership behaviour was not positively related to perceived job performance of leaders in
Singapore. This finding was contrary to previous research and should be investigated in
future studies considering the universal effectiveness of supportive leader behaviour
suggested by many cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House
et al. 2004).

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

ORCID
Joseph Wohkittel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-7320

Note
1. The University of Minnesota’s Office of Institutional Compliance has determined that in order
to manage any potential conflict of interest, neither this author nor anyone reporting directly to
this author may directly perform analyses on these data. In compliance with this directive, the
data have been transferred to the college’s Office of Research Consultation Services (ORCS).
ORCS was and is retained to maintain, conduct analyses on, and ensure the steadfast propriety
of this database.

References
Adler, N. J., and S. Bartholomew. 1992. “Managing Globally Competent People.” The Executive 6
(3): 52–65. doi:10.5465/AME.1992.4274189.
Ardichvili, A. 2001. “Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values of Managers and Employees of
Manufacturing Enterprises in Post-Communist Countries.” Human Resource Development
Quarterly 12 (4): 363–383.
 276 S.J. Hwang et al.

Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. “Leadership in the Asian Century: Lessons from GLOBE.” International
Journal of Organisational Behaviour 5 (3): 150–163.
Ashkanasy, N. M., E. Trevor-Roberts, and L. Earnshaw. 2002. “The Anglo Cluster: Legacy of the
British Empire.” Journal of World Business 37 (1): 28–39. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00072-4.
Bass, B. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1993. “Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques.” In
Leadership Theory and Research, edited by M. M. Chemers and R. Ayman. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Berling, J. A. 1982. “Confucianism.” Asian Religions 2 (1): 5–7.
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:
233–257. doi:10.1177/0022022194252005.
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.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

doi:10.2307/20159921.
Collins, B. E., and B. H. Raven 1969. “Group Structure: Attraction, Coalitions, Communication and
Power.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Davidson, A. R., J. J. Jaccard, H. C. Triandis, M. L. Morales, and R. Diaz-Guerrero. 1976. “Cross-
Cultural Model Testing: Toward a Solution of the Etic-Emic Dilemma.” International Journal of
Psychology 11: 1–13. doi:10.1080/00207597608247343.
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., and J. P. Howell. 1988. “Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership
Patterns: Hofstede Revisited.” In Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3,
edited by E. G. McGoun. Greenwich: JAI Press.
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.
Farh, J.-L., P. M. Podsakoff, and B.-S. Cheng. 1987. “Culture-Free Leadership Effectiveness Versus
Moderators of Leadership Behavior: An Extension and Test of Kerr and Jermier’s “Substitutes
for Leadership” Model in Taiwan.” Journal of International Business Studies 18: 43–60.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490411.
Geletkanycz, M. A. 1997. “The Salience of ‘Culture’s Consequences’: The Effects of Cultural
Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo.” Strategic Management Journal 18
(8): 615–634. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
Gerstner, C. R., and D. V. Day. 1994. “Cross-Cultural Comparison of Leadership Prototypes.” The
Leadership Quarterly 5 (2): 121–134. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90024-8.
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. Huang, and J. 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.
Graen, G. B. 2006. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lesson in Leadership from Project
GLOBE: A Response Viewed from the Third Culture Bonding (TCB) Model of Cross-Cultural
Leadership.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (4): 95–101. doi:10.5465/
AMP.2006.23270309.
Gregersen, H. B., A. J. Morrison, and J. S. Black. 1998. “Developing Leaders for the Global
Frontier.” Sloan Management Review 40 (1): 21–32.
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.
Hezlett, S. H., A. M. Ronnkvist, K. E. Holt, and J. F. Hazucha. 2006. The PROFILOR® Technical
Summary. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Human Resource Development International 277

Hofstede, G., and M. H. Bond. 1988. “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic
Growth.” Organizational Dynamics 16 (4): 5–21. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5.
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. 2004. Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hui, W., K. S. Law, R. D. Hackett, W. Duanxu, and C. Zhen Xiong. 2005. “Leader-Member
Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and
Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Academy of Management
Journal 48: 420–432. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908.
Hur, Y., P. Van Den Berg, and C. 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.
Ishida, H. 1986. “Transferability of Japanese Human Resource Management Abroad.” Human
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:59 11 September 2015

Resource Management 25: 103–120. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X.

Ishikawa, J. 2012. “Transformational Leadership and Gatekeeping Leadership: The Roles of Norm
for Maintaining Consensus and Shared Leadership in Team Performance.” Asia Pacific Journal
of Management 29 (2): 265–283. doi:10.1007/s10490-012-9282-z.
Javidan, M., P. W. Dorfman, M. De Luque, and R. J. House. 2006. “In the Eye of the Beholder:
Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE.” Academy Of Management
Perspectives 20 (1): 67–90. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410.
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: 586–603. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.011.
Kim, H., and H. R. Markus. 1999. “Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural
Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 785–800. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.77.4.785.
Muczyk, J. P., and B. C. Reimann. 1987. “The Case for Directive Leadership.” The Academy of
Management Executive 1 (4): 301–311. doi:10.5465/AME.1987.4275646.
Northouse, P. G. 2006. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PDI Ninth House. 2004. PROFILOR® for Managers. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.
Podsakoff, P. M., W. D. Todor, and R. S. Schuler. 1983. “Leader Expertise as a Moderator of the
Effects of Instrumental and Supportive Leader Behaviors.” Journal of Management 9 (2):
173–185. doi:10.1177/014920638300900208.
Robie, C., K. M. Johnson, D. Nilsen, and J. F. Hazucha. 2001. “The Right Stuff: Understanding
Cultural Differences in Leadership Performance.” Journal of Management Development 20 (7):
639–650. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005637.
Savicki, V. 1999. “Cultural Work Values for Supervisors and Managers: A Cross-Cultural Look at
Child and Youth Care Agencies.” Child and Youth Care Forum 28 (4): 239–255. doi:10.1023/
A:1021905308717.
Scarborough, J. 1998. “Comparing Chinese and Western Cultural Roots: Why “East Is East
And…”.” Business Horizons 41 (6): 15–24. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(98)90018-0.
Shin, S. J., and J. Zhou. 2003. “Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity:
Evidence from Korea.” Academy of Management Journal 46: 703–714. doi:10.2307/30040662.
Silverthorne, C. 2001. “Leadership Effectiveness and Personality: A Cross Cultural Evaluation.”
Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2): 303–309. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00047-7.
Smith, P. B., and M. F. Peterson. 1988. Leadership, Organizations and Culture: An Event
Management Model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior; Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business.
London: The Economist Books.
Wang, J., G. G. Wang, W. E. Ruona, and J. W. Rojewski. 2005. “Confucian Values and the
Implications for International HRD.” Human Resource Development International 8 (3):
311–326. doi:10.1080/13678860500143285.
Xing, F. 1995. “The Chinese Cultural System: Implications for Cross-Cultural Management.” SAM
Advanced Management Journal 60 (1): 14–20.
Yukl, G. A. 2012. Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.