Journal of Intercultural Communication Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

Preferred Leadership Communication Styles

Across Cultures

Joy Cherfan & Myria Allen

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

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.1963306

Published online: 10 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 826

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjic20
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
2022, VOL. 51, NO. 2, 134–152
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.1963306

Preferred Leadership Communication Styles Across Cultures

Joy Cherfan and Myria Allen
Department of Communication, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Implicit Leadership Theory, GLOBE study, and Norton’s Received 16 October 2020
Communication Styles frame this study into how employees from Accepted 28 July 2021
different cultures expect leaders to communicate effectively. Survey KEYWORDS
data collected from 160 college students with prior work experi­ Culturally endorsed
ence who represented 56 different countries, identified the three leadership theories; implicit
most preferred leadership communication styles (i.e. impression leadership theory;
leaving, friendly, attentive), across six cultural clusters (i.e. African, intercultural communication
Anglo, Confucian Asian, Latin American, the Middle Eastern, South competence; leadership;
Asian clusters). Focus group data collected from 25 participants leader communication style
provides insight on how employees expect leaders from these six
clusters to enact these styles. Guidelines emerge from the findings.

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

CONTACT Myria Allen myria@uark.edu

We hereby declare that this manuscript is original and not under consideration or published by any other scientific
journal.
© 2021 World Communication Association
 JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 135

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

Table 1. Norton’s Communication Styles’ Summarized Description.

Dominant Dramatic Contentious
Competitive, enthusiastic, forceful, Emphasizes emotive expressions and Argumentative, disposed to express
confident and takes charge of social uses devices such as exaggerations, dissatisfaction or disturbance.
interactions. stories, metaphors, rhythm, and
voice to highlight message
content. Displays good humour.
Animated Impression leaving Relaxed
Uses active nonverbals including body Remembered because of the Calm, not tense or anxious.
movements, frequent and sustained communicative stimuli projected
eye contact, many facial or used.
expressions, and gestures.
Attentive Open Friendly
Exhibits engagement showing others Conversational, affable, convivial, Ranges from an unhostile recognition
they are being listened to. Appears gregarious, unreserved, and self- of others to deep intimacy. Tactful,
concerned or empathetic. disclosed. encouraging, acknowledges
others, and responds positively.

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?

RQ2: How are these preferred communication styles enacted?

Materials and Methods

Data were collected using a two-part mixed method procedure. A survey helped answer
the first research question. Qualitative focus group data provided in-depth understanding
(Morgan, 1988) of each culture’s preferences to answer research question two.

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.

Data Collection and Analysis

Survey
Survey items came from R.W. Norton’s (1978) communication styles measure. Five
questions assessed each style for a total of 45 questions. The survey question wording
was simplified since many participants were ESL speakers and modified from personal
communication to leader’s communication. For example, “I speak very frequently in
 JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 139

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).

Table 2. Mean Score of Communication Styles Per Cluster.

Dominant Dramatic Contentious Animated Impression Relaxed Attentive Open Friendly
African 3.82 3.59 3.31 3.32 4 .00 3.71 3.86 3.14 3.88
Anglo 3.68 2.92 3.52 3.56 4.18 3.88 4.12 3.58 3.92
Confucius Asia 4.02 3.60 3.48 3.72 4.02 3.84 4.20 3.34 4.02
South Asia 3.71 3.54 3.29 3.50 4.20 4.00 4.20 3.53 4.30
Middle-East 3.77 3.61 3.46 3.26 4.02 3.46 3.89 3.42 3.92
Latin-America 3.98 3.50 3.52 3.37 4.07 3.63 3.94 3.52 3.83
Table 3. Distribution of Preferred Communication Style Attributes Per Cluster.
Style African Anglo Confucian Asian Middle Eastern South Asian Latin American
Impression Composed/Confident Composed/Confident Composed/Confident Composed/Confident Composed/Confident Composed/Confident
Leaving Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
Commanding Commanding Commanding Commanding Commanding Commanding
Easy-Going & Visionaries Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Approachable
Approachable Goal-Oriented Approachable Approachable Approachable Other-Oriented
Other-Oriented Attention-Grabbing Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Goal-Oriented
Visionaries Visionaries Visionaries Visionaries Team-Oriented
Goal-Oriented Well-Spoken Goal-Oriented Service-Driven
Well-Spoken Team-Oriented Well-Spoken Values
Attention-Grabbing Private/Reserved Attention-Grabbing Humble
Team-Oriented Leads by Example
Leads by Example Values
Service-Driven
Indirect
Attentive Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented
Goal-Oriented Goal-Oriented Goal-Oriented Goal-Oriented Goal-Oriented Goal-Oriented
Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Composed/Confident Composed/Confident Easy-Going & Approachable
Approachable Approachable Approachable Well-Spoken Service-Driven Composed/Confident
Well-Spoken Commanding Knowledgeable Well-Spoken
Knowledgeable Team-Oriented Knowledgeable
Values Service-Driven
Humble Commanding
Attention-Grabbing Values
Indirect
Friendly Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Other-Oriented Not A Key Dimension For This
Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Easy-Going & Cluster
Approachable Approachable Approachable Approachable Approachable
Team-Oriented Goal-Oriented Service-Driven Team-Oriented Private/ Reserved
Private/Reserved Goal-Oriented Service-Driven Humble
Serious Knowledgeable
Indirect Leads by Example
Encouraging
Composed/Confident
Dominant Commanding Commanding
Composed/Confident Composed/Confident
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

Serious Other-Oriented
Goal-Oriented
Knowledgeable
Easy-Going & Approachable
141

Well-Spoken
Leads by Example
142 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN

Impression leaving communication style

Preferred by all clusters, this style centres around whether people are remembered
because of the communication stimuli they project (R. W. Norton, 1983). Leaders
enacting this style are expected to be composed and confident, knowledgeable, com­
manding and visionaries. There were some disparities in some attributes mentioned by
the participants. For example, attributes such as easy-going/approachable as well as
other-oriented were a common theme across all clusters except for the Anglo cluster.
Being visionary appeared in all clusters except the Latin American cluster where attri­
butes were more focused on competence and service orientation.

Attentive communication style

Preferred by all clusters, this is a style where the individual makes sure that the other
person knows he or she is being listened to (R. W. Norton, 1983). Leaders using this style
indicate they are other-driven by giving individualized attention and are goal/task-
oriented. Leaders give personal attention to their subordinates and ask a lot of questions
about work, during meetings and about employees during social occasions. Differences
emerged regarding boundaries involving showing personalized attention and asking
personal questions. Representatives of the Anglo, Middle East, and Latin clusters
expressed support for more boundaries than those representing the African, Confucius
Asia, and South Asian clusters. Being easygoing and approachable was rarely mentioned
by the Middle East and South-Asia informants.

Friendly communication style

Survey data indicate the friendly communication style was a preferred style of all but the
Latin American cluster. This style ranges from lack of hostility to deep intimacy (R. W.
Norton, 1983). Friendly leaders care about their employees and seek to get to know them
as people, listen to and try to solve their problems, believe in equality amongst leaders
and team members, and show appreciation.

Dominant communication style

According to R. W. Norton (1983), this style appears through physical manifestations
and follows the assumption of “might makes right”. The dominant communication style
was only found in the Confucian Asian and Latin American clusters. For both clusters,
dominance was related to the ability to make decisions and be commanding, while the
Latin American cluster also believed that dominance was related to competence.

CELT Leadership Communication Style Enactment by Cluster

This section, based on the focus group data, summarizes how preferred leadership
communication styles are enacted in the six different cultural groups. Commonalities
between the representatives of participating countries emerged across all styles preferred
by each individual cluster. Excerpts give the reader a feel for the data gathered.

The African cluster

This cluster preferred the impression leaving, attentive and friendly styles. The ideal
leadership communication style would be one where the leader sets an example and
 JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 143

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”.

The Anglo cluster

This cluster preferred the impression leaving, attentive and friendly styles. The ideal
leadership communication style would be one where the leader is confident: “they would
ask questions and look like they know what they are talking about or what is being said. It
has to be someone that is confident enough to know what is being spoken about around
them, the ins and the outs of the company basically”, engaging, serious and directive –
“During a meeting [. . .] he would tell people, who should talk and who shouldn’t talk”, yet
caring and social when needed. Distance and formality are expected and boundaries
should be observed: “the higher up, let’s say CEO, we would rather that they keep distance
[. . .] And the less high up the hierarchy that person is, the more they can reduce their
distance”.

The Confucian Asian cluster

This cluster preferred the impression leaving, attentive, friendly, and dominant styles.
The ideal leadership communication style would be one where the leader pays attention
to what is being said, can answer questions and shares messages appropriately: “he pays
attention to what you are talking to him and he gives the appropriate answer to your
questions and he reacts in the way . . . . he gives you feedback that helps you and gives
attention to your feeling and reaction to his word”. Leaders should be confident, compe­
tent, and give proper advice, guidance and support, and not just feedback. They are
visionaries and insightful: “show your knowledge and showing your working experience
and very insightful ideas about how the company will develop in the future”. Although they
may listen to others’ opinions, they make the final decision: “in a meeting [. . .] the
employees will give idea and their thinking and then the boss will make a decision, agree
or not”.

The Latin American cluster

This cluster prefers the impression leaving, attentive and dominant styles. The ideal
leadership communication style is where the leader is knowledgeable – “It’s someone who
144 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN

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’”.

The Middle Eastern cluster

This cluster preferred the impression leaving, attentive and friendly styles. The ideal
leadership communication style is where the leader is knowledgeable, yet humble: “if I
find someone who is well knowledgeable about this stuff and willing to share this informa­
tion with me, that’s the person I will trust most.” Leaders should listen to employees and
provide proper feedback, while helping them discover their abilities by advising and
mentoring them: “He advises instead of commanding [. . .] he will not think of himself as a
superior, but he will think of himself as a mentor”. They send positive messages concern­
ing trust and share plans and visions: “we’re trying to find the people that talk more about
the future, visionaries, and has a clear plan about how to achieve everything.” They
provide motivational messages, using “we” and endearing words to help connect better
with employees: “learn words like “habibi” (my friend) or “maalem” (boss/ teacher) and
use them, even though your accent is not good or whatever but they will appreciate that
[. . .] saying words like “maalem” and “basha” (words of respect – rank) and “beik” [. . .]
what would be appropriate like “Dostum” meaning my friend [. . .] also to show respect they
also use names like ‘brother’ then ‘name’ to show respect, he may be younger than you but
you say “akam”, so let’s say my name is John, it would be John-akam”.

The South Asian cluster

This cluster preferred the impression leaving, attentive, friendly and relaxed styles. The
ideal leadership communication style is where the leader listens and gives employees
their undivided attention and provides feedback and confirmation that employee ideas
were heard: “You should listen to what the person is saying, and he should respond or
asking questions so that the person knows that they are being listened to and not ignoring
them.” Leaders should have a sense of humour, yet firm when tasks are not accomplished:
“In my culture it is praised that a leader is firm sometimes; when he tells you directly that he
is not impressed, to me, that is a positive impression too. Sometimes I would need that, for
someone to tell me that that’s not good enough; go try more”. They must be able to respond
rationally during a crisis: “a leader who can keep his head when there’s a crisis, [. . .] he
doesn’t panic, and he doesn’t take extreme measures [. . .] he tries to stay cool, and he tries
to find practical and logical answers to crises that a normal person can respond emotionally
to”. They encourage and acknowledge employees, show appreciation and respect, and
provide feedback by complimenting good ideas: “Giving them encouragement like ‘you
are doing a very good job’. If they do a bad job or it’s not up to expectations, he will
encourage them. The positive words of encouragement improve their performance.” An
effective leader exhibits team-oriented, and humane-oriented leadership attributes: “[the
boss] will call you sometimes outside of work to see how you’re doing or to follow up on
 JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 145

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.

Limitations, Future Research, and Practical Implications

Although we went beyond research that investigated leadership styles in a single country,
our focus remained constrained. A limited number of countries and cultural informants
were present on the campus where the data were collected. Respondents faced question
fatigue due to the similar focus group questions asked for three to four preferred styles.
Only one informant per country participated in the focus groups and our small sample
size means our results are not generalizable.
Given the limitations of working with a university sample, we still ensured that all
participants had work experience in their home countries. The anticipatory organiza­
tional socialization all citizens undergo regardless of culture and our sample’s actual work
experience meant they were credible informants for an initial understanding of CELT
related to leader communication style. Our purposeful global sample (i.e. representatives
of 56 countries surveyed and 25 countries interviewed) highlights the need for additional
CELT research related to leadership communication style enactment. Future research
should investigate larger samples of working professionals representing various indus­
tries, with over ten years of work experience, or those holding different hierarchal
positions. Gender differences regarding CELT communication style enactments also
need investigation.
We used R. W. Norton’s (1983) communication style inventory to limit the focus of
the second part of our study investigating communication enactment. This style inven­
tory, like many others, was developed within the U.S. context, and has been rarely used in
other cultures. More recently De Vries et al. (2011) developed and validated a six-
dimensional Communication Styles Inventory using a Dutch sample. This promising
instrument has been used in Italy (Diotaiuti et al., 2020) and Peru (Brown et al., 2019).
Research is needed into the cultural preferences regarding how the De Vries et al. (2011)
styles are enacted.
In terms of research application, regardless of the style typology used, it is important
to identify the actual enactment of leadership communication style concepts across
culture clusters. Before using any instrument, researchers should work with cultural
informants to evaluate if the instrument captures unique aspects of leadership
 JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 147

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

Appendix Categorization of Vocabulary Found in the Transcripts

Composed/ Knowledgeable/ Commanding Easy-going Other-Oriented Visionary

Confident Competent “Authoritative” /Approachable “More towards “Convincing
“Shouldn’t “Knowledgeable” “Command” “Treats them people” them of a
show anger” “Skilful” “Facial like friends” “Try to engage better vision”
“Behaves “Know what expressions for “Easy-going” everyone” “Dream”
confidently” they’re talking command” “Fun” “Asking how you “Inspirational
“Not wildly about” “In charge” “Not are” visions”
loose” “Clueless look is “In control” threatening” “Keen about the “Visionary”
“Formal” not okay” “Directive” “Laid back” people” “Future
“Controls “Witty” “Strict” “More relaxed” “Compassionate” visionary
himself and “Level of “This is what “Somebody “Really cares” ideas”
his education” you will do” who’s fun and “Making sure “Full of vision”
emotions” “Educated with “Making sure upbeat” everything is “Future”
“Shows experience” that everybody “Less formal” okay and “Visionaries”
power and “Problem knows that you “Humorous” everybody’s “Visionary
confidence” solvers” are in charge” “Comfortable” happy” message”
“Confident “Talented” “Tell you how to “Focused on “New ideas”
delivery” “Above average do something everybody’s best
“Meticulous” ability” and won’t interest”
“Centred” accept if you do “Takes care of
“Disciplined” it in a different them”
way” “Attentive
towards people”
Goal-Oriented Well-spoken Attention-Grabbing Team-Oriented Leads by Example Service-Driven
“Talk about “Prepares “Loud” “Communicate “Less talk, more “How he can
the message he is “Good attention team work” in action” make it better
business” delivering” getter” “‘we’ “I will learn from for you to
“Common “Well-spoken” “Gets others to messages” his example” become
targets and “Makes the point pay attention to “Together in “If he asks to do better”
goals” as clear as what he’s this” something “Put himself
“Focus on possible” saying” “Sees the without knowing behind to be
the agenda” “Good “Catch the company as how to do the sure you are
“Dominant communication” attention of the one” task they will lose doing okay”
to have “Good language” audience” “Team work” respect” “Cares for
results” “Articulate” “Can’t be “Team spirit” “You need to people”
“Talk about “Proper English” boring” “Growing know how to do “What he can
job related “Organized way “Interesting” together” it in order to tell do to help”
issues” of talking” “Memorable” “Sees himself how to do it” “I will take care
“Clear plan “Aware of what “You’ll as a part of the “Gets his hands of It”
about how he is saying” remember them employees and dirty” “Will solve
to achieve “Make their point and remember the team” “Be an example” your problem”
everything” very clearly” what they said” “Let’s do “Do it first and “He can
“Talking “Will not speak “You’ll have something then asks his consult
about job slang” mental image of together” employees to do problems”
related how they “We are in the it” “Asking
issues and communicated” same team” “He does not only questions
concentrate “The way they cue others but about the
on that” communicate also does what personal lives”
“All about leaves a bigger he asks his “Solving
work” impression that employees to do” problems or
“Straight to what you are “set the example” finding
the point” saying” “Lead by solutions”
“Attention is example” “There for me
more on when I needed
work and him”
result” “Willingness to
help”
(Continued)
152 J. CHERFAN AND M. ALLEN

(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”