Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preferred Leadership Communication Styles Across Cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
Preferred Leadership Communication Styles Across Cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
To cite this article: Joy Cherfan & Myria Allen (2022) Preferred Leadership Communication
Styles Across Cultures, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 51:2, 134-152, DOI:
10.1080/17475759.2021.1963306
Introduction
Due to the rise of globalization, companies send even more business leaders out of their
home country to manage company transactions and fill critical positions. Nearly 40
percent of expatriates do not perform as expected (Learnlight, 2018). Expatriate leaders
face cultural differences in knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings,
hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, and concepts of the universe
(Hofstede et al., 1997). They face communication challenges related to differences in
language, semantics, word connotations, tone, and nonverbal cues (Gudykunst & Ting-
Toomey, 1988). Therefore, success during an overseas assignment requires that expatri
ate leaders have cultural intelligence (Sharma & Hussain, 2017) and can recognize the
influence of their own cultural background, be sensitive to cross-cultural differences, and
adjust their behaviour as needed. The global business community seeks information
regarding factors related to cultural intelligence (Iskhakova, 2018), especially as displayed
behaviourally through an individual’s ability to communicate appropriately across
cultures.
While the expatriate leader is trying to manage unfamiliar surroundings, followers in
the host culture evaluate whether the leader’s behaviours are effective and appropriate
(Ko & Yang, 2011). Followers’ backgrounds influence their image of an ideal leader
(Schyns et al., 2008). Followers hold implicit theories for appropriate leader behaviours
(Junker & Van Dick, 2014) which they compare to a leader’s actual behaviours – the basis
of the Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT). If a leader’s actions match followers’ ILT,
positive outcomes for the leader (e.g. productive employees) and the follower (e.g. job
satisfaction) are more likely (Junker & van Dick, 2104). This study investigates the ILT
associated with preferred leadership communication styles. Knowing how to effectively
modify their communication behaviours increases an expatriate leader’s chances of
reaching their work-related goals (Chen, 2015).
“Communication not only constitutes one of the crucial aspects of leadership perfor
mance, but leadership can productively be viewed as a communication process” (Schyns
et al., 2008, p. 1). Communication competence occurs when an individual can choose
among available communicative behaviours to successfully accomplish his or her goals.
Competence initially requires that the communicator recognizes that employees from
diverse cultures react differently to various communication styles (Aritz & Walker, 2014).
Communication styles are “the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally interacts
to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered or understood” (R. W.
Norton, 1983, p. 19). This study seeks to identify cultural differences in preferred
leadership communication styles and how followers expect leaders to properly enact
these communication styles.
Literature Review
Leadership and Behaviour
Over time, two streams of cross-cultural leadership research emerged (Arvey et al., 2015).
One stream argues since leaders face common problems – how to organize, motivate, and
influence others to accomplish organizational goals – many leaders’ behaviours are
universally accepted and effective. Universally endorsed leadership qualities include
being trustworthy, just, and honest; having foresight; being positive, dynamic, encoura
ging, motivating, and building confidence; and being communicative, informed, a coor
dinator, and a team integrator (House et al., 2004). Using a U.S. sample, Offermann and
Coats (2018) found the same seven ILT factors identified by Offermann et al. (1994) (i.e.
sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, strength, masculinity, and intelligence) and
identified a new factor (i.e. creativity).
Most conclusions about leadership were originally based on a Western theoretical
perspective and tested using U.S. samples. Between 1991 and 2015 leadership research
increasingly took place outside the U.S., yet remained based on Western theories and
generally ignored cultural influences (Atwater et al., 2019). A meta-analysis of the
transformational leadership literature drawn from studies conducted in 34 countries
concluded that “our conceptualization of transformational leadership as a universally
effective form of leadership may need to be revisited” (Crede et al., 2019, p. 150). The
“need for a better understanding of the way in which leadership is enacted in various
cultures” remains (Palrecha et al., 2012).
The second stream of leadership research argues that cultural forces affect which
leader behaviours are enacted, accepted and effective. The GLOBE (Global Leadership
and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness; House et al., 2004) project offered the first
large scale empirical evidence that societies’ cultural values influence followers’ expecta
tions for leaders (Arvey et al., 2015). Each society has a specific set of criteria used to
136 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
evaluate their leaders; called culturally endorsed leadership theories (CELT) (Arvey et al.,
2015). The greater convergence between a CEO’s leadership behaviour and a society’s
CELT, the higher a firm’s performance. Lower convergence results in followers’ dissa
tisfaction, conflict, and resistance (Arvey et al., 2015).
The GLOBE project clustered societies into ten different cultural groups noting that
“practices, policies, and procedures that work quite effectively in one culture may
dramatically fail or produce counterproductive behavior in another culture” (Gupta &
Hanges, 2004, p. 179). These cultural groups are Anglo, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe,
Germanic Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia,
and Confucian China (House et al., 2004). Some concepts emerged as universally
important (e.g. integrity, empathy, communication) (House et al., 2004). However,
cultural variations exist in the enactment of these universally important concepts,
including leadership integrity (Martin et al., 2013), transformational leadership (Crede
et al., 2019), and leader empathy (Sadri et al., 2011). This study extends the GLOBE
results by investigating preferred leadership communication styles and their enactment
across six cultural clusters.
Communication Styles
Communication is central to leadership (Fairhurst, 2008). “Leadership is human (sym
bolic) communication that modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others in order to
meet shared group goals and needs” (Hackman & Johnson, 2013, p. 11). Consistent with
research on ILT, a culture’s members possess implicit knowledge about how to commu
nicate in different situations and how to interpret others’ communication (Giri, 2006).
Identifying preferred leadership discourse practices provides leaders with knowledge
about their audiences’ expectations (Aritz & Walker, 2014). Responding to Aritz and
Walker (2014) call for research into the role of cultural context on ILT, this study focuses
on leadership communication styles.
Researchers developed inventories of communication styles (e.g. Burgoon & Hale, 1987;
De Vries et al., 2011; Gudykunst et al., 1996) and investigated cultural differences in
communication styles (e.g. Aritz & Walker, 2009). Researchers investigated leaders’ com
munication style in Finland (e.g. Brandt & Uusi-Kakkuri, 2016) and the Netherlands (e.g.
De Vries et al., 2010). They explored the impact of leader communication style on the
quality of interpersonal exchanges between leaders and followers and how this translates
into outcomes including job satisfaction and task performance in China (e.g. Fan & Han,
2018) and affective organizational commitment in Peru (Brown et al., 2019).
The current study investigates the preferred leadership communication style in six
GLOBE cultural clusters using R. W. Norton’s (1983) communication style typology
which focuses on communication use within a particular context. R. W. Norton (1983)
identified nine communication styles: dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated,
impression leaving, relaxed, attentive, open, and friendly (see Table 1 for a description
of each style summarized from the integrative work of Kang & Hyun, 2012). These nine
styles fit along a single continuum ranging from nondirective through directive commu
nicative style. The nondirective style embraces the attentive communicator who
encourages, accommodates, and acknowledges others. The directive style involves the
dominant communicator who talks frequently and takes control in social situations.
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 137
Societies have specific criteria their members use to evaluate a leaders’ behaviours
(Arvey et al., 2015). Convergence between followers’ expectations and leader’s commu
nication styles can have positive outcomes for firm performance and employee percep
tions and behaviours (see Brandt & Uusi-Kakkuri, 2016; Fan & Han, 2018; De Vries et al.,
2010). However, limited research exists investigating culturally preferred leader commu
nication styles and what does exist is survey based. We know little about how leaders are
expected to enact the culturally preferred communication style. If leaders hope to interact
effectively, build positive relationships, and promote strategic goals when working with
employees outside their own culture’s borders such information is important.
Therefore, this study focuses on two specific research questions:
RQ1: What differences are present across the GLOBE culture clusters in terms of the
preferred communication styles of leaders?
Sample
The cluster and country representations present on the researchers’ campus resulted in
six GLOBE (House et al., 2004) groupings. Countries not in the original GLOBE study
were placed into one of Mensah and Chen (2014) groupings.
The survey respondents had been in the United States between one and three years
and had work experience in their home countries. This meant that, due to their relatively
short stay, they were less acculturated to the U.S. and more likely to recall the cultural
norms of their mother countries. Respondents ranged between 19 to 60 years of age (M =
26.4), and 54% of the 160 respondents were female. They represented 56 countries from
138 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
the African, Anglo, Confucian Asian, Latin American, Latin Europe, South-East Asia,
Nordic Europe, and Middle East clusters.
The African cluster had 24 survey respondents representing eight countries (i.e.
Bahamas, Cameroon, Congo, Dominica, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, and Rwanda).
The Anglo cluster had 10 respondents from two different countries (i.e. United
Kingdom and United States). The Confucian Asia cluster had 10 respondents from two
different countries (i.e. China and Vietnam). The Latin American cluster had 25 respon
dents from five different countries (i.e. Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama).
The Middle Eastern cluster had 18 respondents from six different countries (i.e. Egypt,
Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan). The South Asian cluster had
21 respondents from six different countries (i.e. Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh).
Focus group participants represented country clusters. Respondents from 25 coun
tries, representing six country clusters, participated: Latin America, Africa, Anglo,
Middle East, Confucian Asia, and South Asia. Including one representative from each
available country in each cluster keep the group size manageable for the moderator. The
rationale was that one individual could provide an overview of his or her country’s
preferences regarding leadership communication styles. Respondents had been in the
U.S. for less than three years, were graduate students, and have worked in their home
country in an organizational setting under supervisory leadership. They could reflect on
their own experiences as well as cultural norms during the discussions. Equal numbers of
men and women participated.
Procedure
The university’s Institutional Review Board approved the project (Protocol #16-01-479).
Participants accessed the informed consent material on the survey website. Starting the
survey signified implied consent. Participants signed printed informed consent forms
before the focus group discussions began.
Survey recruitment occurred through the university’s international students’ office, a
link posted on the first author’s social media accounts, and emails sent to the leaders of
campus international student organizations. The survey remained open a month and a
half on the Qualtrix survey platform. Data were analysed using the SPSS statistics
software.
Focus group recruitment occurred using emails sent through the international stu
dents’ office to specific individuals based on their nationality, direct contacts made by the
first author, and snowball sampling. The focus groups lasted between one to two hours
and were recorded.
most social situations” was changed to “Leaders who speak very frequently in most social
situations”. All questions were phrased, “Leaders who . . . ”. During a pilot test, two
undergraduate Asian students and three undergraduate African students assessed the
survey for clarity and simplicity.
R.W. Norton (1978) provided evidence of content validity and reported satisfactory
internal reliabilities. Other authors reported similar results (e.g. Duran & Zakahi, 1987),
and utilized confirmatory factor analysis, tested for discriminant validity, and found
composite reliability values greater than .7 using an U.S. sample (e.g. Kang & Hyun,
2012). We did not calculate scale reliability due to our study’s small sample size (N = 160)
drawn from 56 countries.
Means and standard deviations were calculated. Since the survey scale ranged from 1
to 5, with 1 meaning “not favoured at all in my culture” and 5 meaning “very favoured in
my culture”, an average mean of 4 meant that a particular style was preferred.
Communication styles with scores of 3.8 or above were selected if a mean of 4 did not
secure three preferred leadership communication styles for a cluster.
Focus groups
Focus group instructions reminded the respondents to answer for their cultural group
rather than as individuals and to focus on corporate leadership. Participants were asked
about their culture’s definition and perception of their cluster’s preferred leader com
munication styles (i.e. what does this communication style mean in your culture?), the
nonverbal aspects of that style (i.e. how would a leader using this style behave or act, how
would you describe their body language?), the verbal aspects of that style (i.e. what kind
of messages should we expect from a leader using this style?), the situational differences
within that style (i.e. does the enactment of this style differ from meetings to social
occasions within the company?), the hierarchical differences within that style (i.e. does
the enactment of this style differ between CEO and middle-manager?), and finally, the
appropriateness of that style (i.e. when would this style be considered inappropriate?).
The moderator read the same set of seven focus group questions for the top three or
four styles identified on the survey by each cluster. For example, the African cluster
survey responses indicated that impression leaving, friendly, and attentive were their top
three styles. Because the mean was highest for the impression leaving style, first they were
asked: What does the impression leaving communication style mean in your culture?
Then, the same seven questions were asked substituting “friendly” for the “impression
leaving” and then for “attentive”.
Given the range of cultures in our sample we felt to code our data using a priori coding
categories would mask the cultural knowledge various groups use to understand and
evaluate appropriate leader communication styles. Therefore, we used a grounded theory
approach (Charmaz, 2006). During the first coding cycle, in-text coding occurred
(Saldana, 2016; Tracy, 2013). The key words participants used to describe their country’s
preferred leader communication styles were identified and grouped according to general
themes or similarity of meaning. Within each cluster, we analysed the transcripts to
create a general sense of practical understanding, identify the consensus emerging within
each cultural cluster, and mark any differences between the countries within the same
cluster (see Appendix for the groupings). During the second coding cycle, axial coding
was used to group the various communication behaviours by style to better identify
140 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
followers’ expectations for how their leaders should enact culturally appropriate com
munication styles.
To assess inter-coder reliability two coders assessed four transcript pages looking for
key words, concepts and interpretations in each sentence. After coding each page,
disagreements were discussed until agreement was reached. Then coders separately
coded the next page. The four pages chosen came from the Confucian Asian cluster
transcript due to the respondents’ use of cultural vocabulary, improper grammar, and
lack of clarity in the ideas expressed. An excerpt from the Confucian cluster transcript is
presented here as an example: “the boss or the employer should of course, should have or
be talented, they should be good at work, to me and, and they are maybe the appearance
outside? [. . .] his personality and characteristic. He is brave and he is full of vision and
the way he treats his employees, whether he is nice to them or strict to them, I think that
is impression leaving.”. This illustrates respondents use of cultural vocabulary – words
and linguistic associations that make sense in one’s culture such as associating “nice” and
“strict” as antonyms rather than “nice” and “mean” in western cultures. The sample
illustrates the use of incorrect grammatical sentence structure – such as saying “strict to
them” rather than “strict with them”, and the lack of clarity in the ideas expressed such as
“they should be good at work, to me and, they are maybe the appearance outside”.
Working through such challenges allowed the researchers to refine the coding process
and to achieve an inter-coder reliability of .96 Cohen Kappa (Cohen, 1960). After testing
for reliability, the primary researcher coded the remaining transcripts.
Results
Communication Styles
Research question one asked: “What differences are present across the GLOBE culture
clusters in terms of preferred communication styles of leaders?” Looking by style across
all the clusters, the most frequently preferred styles were impression leaving, friendly, and
attentive, although several others emerged in two clusters (see Table 2).
Research question two asked, how are these preferred communication styles enacted?
Space limitations preclude a detailed discussion of all the findings (see Cherfan, 2016, for
an in-depth analysis). Here we focus on the top three leadership communication styles
identified as important across the cultural clusters (i.e. impression leaving, attentiveness,
and friendly), plus the dominant style which emerged as key for several other cultural
clusters. Table 3 summarizes the themes emerging for each cluster by style, and an
appendix indicates key words associated with each theme (see Appendix).
Serious Other-Oriented
Goal-Oriented
Knowledgeable
Easy-Going & Approachable
141
Well-Spoken
Leads by Example
142 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
enacts that example: “we like to say in my country easier said than done. So, if he just talks
about actions but takes no actions to portray that, people don’t respect that”. An ideal
leader creates a relationship with employees that is modelled after a father-son relation
ship which is comprised of a balance between respect and friendship: “we appreciate if
[. . .] you as a leader are treating them as your children, the leader is seen as an elder so if
you are able to communicate in a way that portrays that sudden kind of father/ child kind
of relationship, then you will leave a good impression [. . .] 60% respect and 40% friend
ship”. Leaders are expected to be knowledgeable, willing to listen, caring about their
employees and intelligent, yet remain humble: “they expect you to be humble, so when you
approach everything you need to show that you’re not too overconfident or too proud, you
have to be closer to the audience you are talking to, but if you talk and brag and self-
praising then it’s bad”. They should send messages of motivation, encouragement, and
guidance, as well as address people as part of a team: “messages that communicate team
work rather than authoritative would be more appealing [. . .] Like ‘we’re in this’, ‘we can
do this’, or ‘we have done this’ rather than ‘you need to do this’. More of a “we” kind of
message”.
has authority because of their knowledge”, and well prepared, competent with good
managerial skills, ethical, and confident yet humble. Leaders should show appreciation,
and a willingness to help and care for employees: “they start paying attention to everything
that you have to say, which shows that they care”. They should provide guidance and
feedback: “Like a commander or coach, I want to learn from them, like a mentor”. They
should explain the reason for their orders: “So a good leader tells you ‘hey, this is what
you’re gonna do because we want ’these‘, and you might see ’this‘, and if you don’t, it’s okay
we’ll try it another way’, instead of having someone saying ‘hey, go ahead and do this now’”.
things that have happened to you that are personal [. . .] I am not just your boss, you are
human, I am human, we can talk on any level. But, still, when it comes to work, I am your
superior”.
Discussion
Followers hold implicit theories for what appropriate leader behaviours consist of (LTI;
Junker & Van Dick, 2014) which are influenced by culture (i.e. CELT; Arvey et al., 2015).
However, much leadership research primarily uses Western theories and data collection
instruments and fails to focus on culture’s influence on leadership enactment (Atwater et
al., 2019). And, although communication is universally important to leadership enact
ment (House et al., 2004), practically no research exists investigating CELT related to
leader communication behaviours and how followers describe appropriate communica
tion style enactment.
The survey responses indicated that attentiveness is a preferred leader communica
tion style across all culture clusters, although not always the most preferred.
Impression leaving and friendly are also generally preferred styles. The dominant
style is preferred by a few clusters. Interestingly, three styles (i.e. dramatic, contentious,
and animated) located closer to the directive side of R. W. Norton’s (1983) continuum
are rarely preferred. The desire for a delicate balance between a strong emotional
display (most obvious with directive styles) and emotional restraint emerged in the
focus group findings. This delicate balance is critical for expatriate leaders to under
stand even if they find themselves working in a high-power distance (Hofstede et al.,
1997) culture.
The inclusion of qualitative data highlights the complexity of the CELT related to
leadership communication. Similarities and differences emerged in how preferred
leadership communication styles are enacted. It is beyond the scope of our limited
data and space to explain why differences emerged across six cultural clusters.
However, previous research provides clues to the why. One might begin by looking
at typologies created using large global samples (e.g. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
and the GLOBE leadership framework). Also there are some excellent communication
theories which provide clues across cultures (e.g. direct and indirect communication
styles, face negotiation theory, anxiety/uncertainty management theory) as well as
within one cultural cluster (e.g. Taoist communication theory, Hindu communication
theory). For example, drawing on Hofstede et al.’s (1997) work to better understand
our findings, members of the Anglo cluster mentioned dominance rather than relation
ship building when talking about impression leaving, potentially because Anglo coun
tries focus more on individualism. In the Latin American cluster, themes focused on
competence and service-orientation are qualities potentially related to uncertainty
avoidance. In terms of the attentive communication style, being easygoing and
approachable was not a common theme for the Middle East and South-Asia, perhaps
due to high-power distance. The same may be true for being reserved or private as
mentioned by both the African and South-Asian clusters. Moving forward, when
explaining differences between leadership communication styles enactment between
cultural clusters, researchers can explain their findings using the work of the theorists
146 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
mentioned above but must also be aware that these theories can mask culturally unique
influences (Atwater et al., 2019).
Scholarly Contribution
Previous research studied communication styles without considering how cultural influ
ence might affect interactions (e.g. De Vries et al., 2010), or without focusing on leader
ship (e.g. Gudykunst et al., 1996). Researchers investigated R. W. Norton’s (1983)
communication styles in specific countries (e.g. Guo et al., 2015) but did not compare
cultural groups or investigate the styles’ practical enactment. Cross-cultural leadership
studies largely overlook communication (e.g. House et al., 2004). This study merged the
CELT and communication styles literatures to explore preferred leadership communica
tion styles across multiple cultures. Ours is the first communication study to attempt a
larger investigation focusing on the GLOBE clusters.
communication style enactment within or between cultural clusters. Then they should
focus on identifying and explaining cultural nuances in their abstract and discussion
sections, something often overlooked in leadership studies (Atwater et al., 2019).
In terms of practical application, effective interaction between individuals who repre
sent different parts of the world requires communication competence (Arasaratnam,
2014). Intercultural communication competence requires cultural awareness which
includes knowledge, skills, and the proper attitude. This study provides the element of
knowledge mentioned by both Byram (2011), and Dia and Chen (2015) as useful during
intercultural communication interactions. As a result, our findings can help trainers
(Brandt & Uusi-Kakkuri, 2016) increase expatriate leaders’ cultural intelligence (Sharma
& Hussain, 2017) by preparing them to communicate in ways consistent with their
followers’ CELT. Executive coaches should work with high-level leaders destined to
serve outside their home country to identify the new culture’ general CELT expectations,
and stress the importance of mindfully enacting culturally appropriate communication
behaviours, especially those which leave a positive impression and communicate atten
tiveness (i.e. other orientation and goal orientation behaviours). Executive leadership
programmes should include a panel or open discussion among the culturally diverse
leaders in attendance where they discuss differences in general CELT expectations and
cultural nuances in leader communication style enactment. Recognizing how to adapt
one’s own communication behaviour is very important. Therefore, behavioural exercises
(e.g. role playing, scenarios) which focus on identifying differing communication expec
tations will help leaders learn about more location specific communication style prefer
ences and gain confidence in enacting them both verbally and nonverbally, across
situations (i.e. at work, socially), at different hierarchical levels, and at appropriate times.
Disclosure statement
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Notes on contributors
Joy Cherfan (M.A., University of Arkansas, USA) received the 2017’s “Master’s Education Section
Outstanding Thesis Award” by the National Communication Association for this project. A
member of the Lambda Pi Eta Honor Society, Joy is currently a Communication Coach and
Consultant in Beirut, Lebanon.
Myria Allen (Ph.D., University of Kentucky) is a Professor of Communication at the University of
Arkansas, USA, who researches issues related to organizational, intercultural and environmental
communication issues. She has been recognized as a master researcher and won awards as a
teacher-scholar and an outstanding mentor. Her 2016 book Strategic Communication for
Sustainable Organizations (Springer) won the Christine L. Oravec best environmental book
award for her blending of organizational and environmental research.
References
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2014). Ten years of research in intercultural communication competence
(2003-2013): A retrospective. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 35(2), 5. http://www.
immi.se/intercultural/nr35/arasaratnam.html
148 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
Aritz, J., & Walker, R. C. (2009). in. Cognitive organization and identity maintenance.
Aritz, J., & Walker, R. C. (2014). Leadership styles in multicultural groups: Americans and East
Asians working together. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(1), 72–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488413516211
Arvey, R., Dhanaraj, C., Javidan, M., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2015). Are there unique leadership models in
Asia? Exploring uncharted territory. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.003
Atwater, L., Yu, J., Tawse, A., Fields, L. H., McFarren, J. A., & Young Nae, E. (2019). Relevance of
culture in studies of leadership: Ignored or dismissed? Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 38
(2), 687-708.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09678-w
Brandt, T., & Uusi-Kakkuri, P. (2016). Transformational leadership and communication style of
Finnish CEOs. Communication Research Reports, 33(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08824096.2016.1155045
Brown, O., Paz-Aparicio, C., & Revilla, A. J. (2019). LMX and organizational commitment: A study
of employee perceptions in Peru. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(2),
230–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2018-0129
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of
relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637758709390214
Byram, M. (2011). Intercultural citizenship from an internationalist perspective. Journal of the
NUS Teaching Academy, 1(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.25170%2Fijelt.v12i1.833
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage.
Chen, G. M. (2015). Theorizing global community as cultural home in the new century.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2015.03.024
Cherfan, J. (2016). Preferred leadership communication styles across cultures [Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Arkansas University of Arkansas’s Institutional Repository]. https://scholar
works.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3260&context=etd
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Crede, M., Jong, J., & Harms, P. (2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership across
cultures. A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JMP-11-2018-0506
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., & Schouten, B. (2011). The communication
styles inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its
relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093650211413571
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication? The
relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and
leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10869-009-9140-2
Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Mancone, S., & Grambone, A. (2020). Psychometric properties and a
preliminary validation study of the Italian brief version of the Communication Styles Inventory
(CSI-B/I). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01421
Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1987). Communication performance and communication satisfac
tion: What do we teach our students? Communication Education, 36(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03634528709378637
Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership
psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0893318907313714
Fan, H., & Han, B. (2018). How does leader-follower fit or misfit in communication style matter for
work outcomes? Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(7), 1083–1100.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6925
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 149
Giri, V. N. (2006). Culture and communication style. The Review of Communication, 6(1–2),
124–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358590600763391
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996).
The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on
communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Guo, W., Li, T., & Wu, N. (2015). Empirical study on the effects of leader’s verbal communication
style on employee’s job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 3(4),
211–227. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2015.34027
Gupta, V., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In J. S.
House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178–218). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Waveland
Press.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1997). Cultures and organizations. McGraw Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Iskhakova, M. (2018). Does cross-cultural competence matter when going global: Cultural intelli
gence and its impact on performance of international students in Australia. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 47(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.
2018.1437463
Junker, N. M., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic
review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25(6), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
Kang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2012). Effective communication styles for the customer-oriented service
employee: Inducing dedicational behaviors in luxury restaurant patrons. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 772–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.014
Ko, H. C., & Yang, M. L. (2011). The effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate assignments.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 158–174. https://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/12Hsiu-
ChingKoMu-LiYang.pdf
Learnlight (2018, May). Why 40% of overseas assignments fail and what you can do to prevent it.
Learnlight Insights. https://insights.learnlight.com/en/articles/overseas-assignments/
Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Resick, C. J., Szabo, E., Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C. (2013). The meaning
of leader integrity: A comparative study across Anglo, Asian, and Germanic cultures. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.02.004
Mensah, Y. M., & Chen, H. Y. (2014). Global clustering of countries by culture–an extension of the
GLOBE study. Available at SSRN 2189904. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2189904
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication
Research, 4(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00600.x
Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over
two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.
12.003
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J., . K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content,
structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
1048-9843(94)90005-1
Palrecha, R., Spangler, W. D., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). A comparative study of three leadership
approaches in India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2011.11.012
150 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN
Sadri, G., Weber, T. J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An
empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 818–830. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.005
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Schyns, B., Kroon, B., & Moors, G. (2008). Follower characteristics and the perception of
leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 772–788. https://doi.org/
10.1108/02683940810896330
Sharma, N., & Hussain, D. (2017). Current status and future directions for cultural intelligence.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17475759.2016.1264444
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, commu
nicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 151
(Continued).
Indirect Humble Values Private/Reserved Serious Encouraging
“Speaks in “Humbleness” “Positive “Can’t be too “Serious” “You
an indirect “Humble” Values” close to your “Serious encourage
way” “Not seeing “Christian” employees” approach” them”
“Not talk yourself above “Invested” “Wall of “Serious attitude” “I’m proud of
about anyone else” “Give back to respect” “Serious Image” you”
touchy “Not too the community” “More “Serious look” “Make an
things” overconfident” “Truthful” bureaucracy” “Serious type” example out of
“Doesn’t use “Not too proud” “Resilient” “Should keep “Need to be people who
heavy “Speak with “High work distant from serious” have done
words” humility” ethic” the employees, “Look more well”
“Addresses “Punctual” not get too serious” “Acknowledge
the issue as “Responsible” engaged” “Be focused” doing well”
a whole not “More “Doesn’t make “Compliment
single out reserved” jokes” you”
anyone” “Comfortable “Celebrate
“Speaks in but more when the team
proverb” reserved” has done
“Speak “Personal life something”
without should not be “You’re doing
being too out there” a good job”
direct” “More “Give good
“Proposing boundaries” advice to me
style, very “Friendliness to make good
indirect” has a limit” progress”
“Don’t like “Set limits” “Give awards”
people who “Don’t cross “You’ve done
talk the line” an excellent
straight.” job”
“Go around
what we
want to say,
especially if
will hurt”
“Give
anecdotes
to give
ideas”