Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Strategic leadership across cultures: Current findings and future research

directions§
Hui Wang a,*, David A. Waldman b, Hongyu Zhang a
a
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, China
b
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research on strategic leadership has proliferated for a long time. However, very little work has been
Strategic leadership conducted to investigate this issue from a cross-cultural perspective. To fill this gap, we first review
Cross culture recent findings on strategic leadership in different cultural backgrounds. Then, based on the upper
Upper echelons theory
echelons theory, we summarize what researchers have found regarding the effects of personal
Current findings
Future research directions
characteristics of strategic leaders on firm performance in terms of observed personal experience,
personality, values, cognitive style, and leadership behaviors. Furthermore, we generate some future
research directions focusing on concepts, theories, and also methodological issues of strategic leadership
across cultures. We consider how research across different cultures will enrich our understanding of
strategic leadership and unfold the ‘‘black box’’ of why and how strategic leaders have positive effects on
firm level performance. Finally, practical implications for managers are considered.
ß 2012 Elsevier Inc.. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2004; Silverthorne, 2001). For example, Dorfman and Howell

As competition in the global economy becomes increasingly
complex and challenging, firms encounter and attempt to deal
with numerous opportunities and threats. Management scholars
and practitioners have worked hard to develop different theories
and methods to help organizations adapt. Research has shown that
strategic leadership practices can help firms enhance their
effectiveness and efficiency and, thus, their abilities to compete
in dynamic and uncertain environments (e.g., Waldman, Ramirez,
House, & Puranam, 2001).
Furthermore, an increasing number of scholars have realized
that the majority of existing management theories have been
developed in the Western context and may not be necessarily
applicable to management globally (Hofstede, 1993; Tsui, 2006).
Leadership theory, a key part of management theory in general, is
not an exception. House and Aditya (1997:109) pointed out that
‘‘almost all of the prevailing theories of leadership and about 98% of
empirical evidence’’ come from the United States. At the same
time, in order to identify culture-specific and universal behaviors
of leaders, scholars have paid increasing attention to cross-cultural
issues (Fu & Yukl, 2000; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
§
This research is supported by a grant from Natural Science Foundation of China
(the number is 71032001) awarded to the first author.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wanghui@gsm.pku.edu.cn (H. Wang), waldman@asu.edu
(D.A. Waldman), zhanghongyu09@pku.edu.cn (H. Zhang).
(1988) examined the impact of charismatic leadership on
employee satisfaction in two countries, finding that the impact
was much stronger in the United States compared to that in
Mexico. In a recent study, Shao and Webber (2006) found that the
positive relationship between extraversion and transformational
leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000), which was empirically supported
in the Western context, could not be established in the Chinese
context.
The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effective-
ness (GLOBE) project is an influential effort that explores the
impact of cultural values on leadership effectiveness in 62
countries. Its goal is to develop an empirically based theory of
cross-cultural leadership (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman,
2002). Although much of its empirical evidence supports the
important role of culture in shaping different leadership behaviors
and predicting leadership effectiveness, to date, much of the
GLOBE project has been limited to middle managers – not
executive leaders.
This paper focuses on the nature of effective strategic
leadership across different countries. Its purpose is to summarize
research findings on strategic leadership across cultural settings
and outline possible future research directions. We aim to clarify
what has been learned about strategic leadership in different
countries and what we should do next to explore strategic
leadership and the effectiveness of firms, as well as the
mechanisms that link strategic leadership with a firm’s effective-
ness. However, partly because of the difficulty of collecting data at
the executive level, especially when conducting cross-cultural

1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Inc.. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.010
572 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
research, published empirical evidence on these topics remains
quite limited. Therefore, in the following section, in addition to
reviewing cross-cultural strategic leadership research, we will also
compare the results of studies that are based on samples from
different countries.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. First, we
conduct a review of strategic leadership research, which is based
heavily on the upper echelons theory that was initially introduced
by Hambrick and Mason (1984). Second, we summarize what
researchers have found regarding the effects of personal char-
acteristics of strategic leaders on firm performance in terms of
observed personal experience, personality, values, cognition styles,
and leadership behaviors. Third, based on this review, we suggest
some general ideas pertaining to the next stage of research on
strategic leadership across cultures by focusing on concepts,
theories, and also methodological issues.
2. Upper echelons theory and strategic leadership
Neither classic leadership research nor strategic management
theory has paid sufficient attention to those leaders at strategic
levels and their influences on firms. As noted by House and Aditya
(1997), strategic management has emphasized strategic choices or
decisions, rather than the processes through which choices are
actually made or implemented, and, therefore, the context in
which the decisions are made has been oversimplified (e.g.,
Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992).
Since the 1980s, leadership and strategic management research-
ers alike have been increasingly interested in phenomena pertaining
to leaders at strategic levels. In short, increasing research has been
conducted under the umbrella of strategic leadership based on the
upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
According to Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) upper echelons
theory, individual experience, personal values, cognitive style, and
personality traits of the upper echelons have an important impact on
companies’ strategic choices and decisions. Initially, upper echelons
theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), later evolving into strategic
leadership theory (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996), suggested that
the key dependent variable of concern is organizational perfor-
mance, defined in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and stake-
holders’ needs (Hambrick, 1989). However, increasing attention has
been paid to firm-level behaviors more generally, instead of the
financial outcomes per se. Typical examples include middle
managers’ attitudes and behaviors (Fu, Tsui, Liu, & Li, 2010; Wang,
Tsui, & Xin, 2011), corporate strategy and structure (Miller &
Toulouse, 1986), strategic persistence (Finkelstein & Hambrick,
1990; Keck & Tushman, 1993), socially responsible performance
(Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006), external support (Flynn & Staw,
2004), managerial practices (Young, Charns, & Shortell, 2001),
organizational learning (Crossan & Hulland, 2002; McGill & Slocum,
1993; Vera & Crossan, 2004), and illegal corporate activity (Daboub,
Rasheed, Priem, & Gray, 1995).
As for the key independent variables, Hambrick and Mason
(1984) suggested two major classes of personal characteristics that
contribute to an executive’s orientation, and, ultimately, the types of
outcomes mentioned above. The first set of characteristics is
psychological properties, which include values, cognitive style and
other elements including personality. Psychological factors yield
conceptual clarity (Lawrence, 1997) as these characteristics provide
a basis from which the executive filters and interprets stimuli,
disposing executives to certain choices (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
However, the evaluation and assessment of these character-
istics can be empirically difficult. Accordingly, a second and more
common set of characteristics that has been studied involves those
observable dimensions of a person’s experiences, which include
age, formal education, functional background, and other related
factors. In contrast to psychological characteristics, experiences
can be studied via demographical data, which are abundant,
measurable, and readily obtainable. The disadvantage is that
‘‘demographic indicators may contain more noise than purer
psychological measures’’ (Hambrick & Mason, 1984:196). In other
words, demographic proxies may suggest an underlying ability or
psychological process, but they do not measure them directly.
To date, most research on strategic leadership has been
conducted in Western countries, especially the United States.
Yet, it is not clear if there might be different results across different
cultures. Upper echelons theory is basically an information
filtering process (Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005). From
this perspective, people will actively select the information and
interpret it based on their idiosyncratic situations. The executive’s
orientation, including psychological factors (such as personalities,
values, cognitive style, and behaviors) and observable experiences
(such as age, tenure, functional background and formal education),
serves to filter or even potentially distort all potential environ-
mental and organizational stimuli. Accordingly, there could be
distinct orientations that could vary with culture.
We consider upper echelons theory to be a useful and convincing
perspective to understand leadership at the macro level. However,
we also propose that this framework may overestimate the active
role of people during the interactive process between people and the
environment, thus neglecting the fact that people are often passively
influenced by environmental factors, such as culture. In other words,
this framework does not adequately take into account cross-cultural
phenomena. Although there may be aspects of a universally effective
leadership style, there are also likely to be differences due to
followers’ responses and/or contextual influence embedded in
different cultures (House et al., 2004).
In sum, following the logic of the upper echelons theory, but
balanced with an acknowledgement of the roles of people in their
unique environments or contexts, we argue that culture influences
either strategic leadership prototypes or leadership effectiveness
through five important aspects: (1) observable experiences, (2)
personalities, (3) values, (4) cognitive style, and (5) leadership
behaviors. We now explore each of these aspects in the following
sections.
3. Observable experiences
Observable experiences, typically proxied by demographic
variables, have been the primary means by which scholars study
strategic leadership, due to the relative ease of data collection
(Hambrick & Mason, 1984), as well as some interesting findings
that have been reported (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Early on,
demographic variables were incorporated in strategic leadership
studies through simple, descriptive analysis (Child, 1974). Later,
scholars began to realize that such simple statistics lacked validity
or theoretical meaning with regard to evaluating the character-
istics of executive leaders. Demographic variables can only be
considered as proxies for underlying processes. Therefore, as
described further below, scholars have explored the psychological
bases of these observable experiences. In addition, scholars have
adopted a strategic contingency perspective, examining the
importance of the fit between demographic variables and
environmental influences (e.g., Wu, Levitas, & Priem, 2005).
Specifically, we will focus on three factors of observable
experience: tenure, functional background, and top management
team (TMT) heterogeneity.
3.1. Tenure
Age and the length of tenure can affect an executive’s attitude
and behaviors, which in turn can influence the executive’s
 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
decision-making and actions, as well as firm outcomes (Finkel-
stein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009). In empirical studies, executive
tenure has various definitions including tenure in the position,
tenure in the organization, and tenure in the industry. However,
empirical studies, based on these different definitions, share the
same theme that the length of tenure can be either beneficial or
harmful to the firm. On the one hand, longer tenure will produce
inertia such that executives holding long tenure are likely to show
passive attitudes toward change (Musteen, Barker, & Baeten,
2006), and correspondingly, firms are unlikely to be innovative
(Young et al., 2001). On the other hand, longer tenure will create
more experience and higher prestige so that executives with long
tenure may easily find support inside their organizations. For
example, Simsek (2007) attempted to link the relationship
between CEO tenure and firm performance through the mecha-
nism of TMT interface, arguing that the longer tenure of a CEO will
build more trust within a TMT, thus facilitating more risk-taking
behaviors.
Environmental dynamism is a key factor that might moderate
the impact of tenure. For example, in technologically dynamic
environments, short-tenured CEOs invest more, while the result is
opposite in stable environments (Wu et al., 2005). Overall,
different countries can present different business environments
to executives of firms. Therefore, although there are very few
empirical studies on cross-cultural effects of tenure, it is
reasonable to conclude that the relationship between the
executive leader’s tenure and firm-level outcomes may follow
different patterns in different countries. The difference may not
only be attributed to economic activities, but it may also be due to
some deep societal beliefs such as uncertainty avoidance, power
distance, and other cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980).
Attitudes toward ‘‘aging people’’ constitute another possible
explanation for such cross-cultural differences. In some Asian
countries such as China, where there is a long tradition of
respecting elders, the length of tenure may be beneficial to the firm
since the ‘‘experience’’ side of longer tenure will be more valued.
However, in other societies where innovation or initiatives are
popular, the length of tenure may be harmful to the firm, since the
‘‘inertia’’ side of longer tenure will be emphasized.
3.2. Functional background
The link between functional background and firm-level out-
comes can occur through several mechanisms (Finkelstein et al.,
2009), among which the most convincing is that functional
background can shape an executive’s cognitive perspective and
knowledge base (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that there are two types of
functions: (1) output functions, such as marketing and R&D, and
(2) throughput functions, such as production and finance. Output
functions are outside-oriented in that executives with such
functional experiences tend to pursue prospector strategies. On
the other hand, the throughput functions are inside-oriented in
that executive with such functional experiences tend to pursue
defender strategies (Finkelstein et al., 2009).
With that said, the above link may vary across cultures since
executive functional background, which is embedded in the
societal culture and context, may influence executive cognition.
For example, although Katz and Kahn (1978) defined finance as
throughput functions, recently, finance has become a more
outside-oriented function with the goal of not only cost control,
but also capital attainment. Based on a sample of Fortune 500
companies, Jensen and Zajac (2004) found that CEOs with a
financial background tend toward diversification strategies. Yet,
Chen and Sun (2008) found a directly opposite result in China. One
possible explanation is that the function of finance is oriented
573
toward cost control in Chinese societies, while it is more oriented
toward capital attainment in the U.S.
The emphasis on general management is another possible
mechanism that is affected by cultural differences. Finkelstein et al.
(2009) proposed that the relationship between an executive’s
functional background and his/her interpretation of strategic
stimuli is weaker if the broader cultural milieu emphasizes general
management. Dearborn and Simon (1958) found a functional bias
in interpreting business problems, but 30 year later, after MBA
programs became popular, Walsh (1988) could not replicate
Dearborn and Simon (1958)’s results because of the increasing
emphasis of MBA programs on general management, rather than
functional importance.
To sum up, it is possible for executives with the same functional
knowledge base to develop various cognitive models across
cultures, thus requiring the interpretation of the nature or the
importance of certain functions differently.
3.3. TMT heterogeneity
Hambrick (2007) suggested using characteristics of the entire
top management team (TMT), rather than just the CEO, as a
meaningful unit of analysis when predicting organizational actions
and outcomes. Beyond characteristics of individual executives, the
overall nature of the TMT may also be relevant to firm outcomes.
Along these lines, TMT heterogeneity has received some research
attention. Most studies treated TMT heterogeneity (e.g., in terms of
age, gender, background, etc.) as a proxy for cognitive variety
(Milliken & Martins, 1996). On the one hand, cognitive variety can
enhance creativity or innovation, especially in a turbulent
environment (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993). On the other hand,
it also can potentially hinder internal communication, thus
generating disharmony within a team (Van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). In addition, TMT disparity in terms of pay or
status can lead to internal competition and even deviance among
members (Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Recent work on demographic faultlines may hold special
promise for understanding the effects of diversity in TMTs. Lau and
Murnighan (1998) referred to combinations of correlated aspects
of diversity that provide a clear basis for differentiation between
subgroups. The idea underlying faultlines is that there are both
between-group differences and within-group similarity (Van
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Harrison and Klein (2007) noted
that the disparity resulting from faultlines can mitigate the
potential advantages of diversity for teams. As an example, Li and
Hambrick (2005) used the demographic characteristics of age,
tenure, gender, and ethnicity to show how faultlines within joint
venture management groups engendered a greater degree of task
conflict, emotional conflict, and behavioral disintegration. This
poorer group process, in turn, led to poor performance on the part
of highly factional (on the basis of faultlines) groups.
To date, there is little research directly comparing TMT
heterogeneity and its effects on aspects of firm effectiveness
across cultures. However, we consider such comparisons to
represent a very important and interesting topic. For example,
in some Asian societies, there may be less diversity or heteroge-
neity in TMTs, as compared to TMTs in Western societies. How
might such a lack of internal differences affect TMTs in those
societies, as compared to cultures with more diversity (and, thus,
more likely to have diverse TMTs)?
4. Personality
The personality-based perspective of leadership traces back to
the 1930s. It long dominated the initial decades of the leadership
literature. At the beginning, this paradigm aimed at searching for
574 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
individual personality traits that separated effective leaders from
others. Unfortunately, the paradigm did not thrive. House and
Aditya (1997) noted several reasons for the failure of this
paradigm, among which the most important one was the lack of
consensus on ‘‘leadership traits’’, especially when considering
contextual influences.
With that said, in the strategic management literature, the issue
of the potential effects of executive personality on organizational
outcomes has grown in prominence. For example, Finkelstein et al.
(2009) considered the influence of self-concept, especially core
self-evaluation, as well as the related construct of narcissism, on
organizational outcomes. While some research has shown nega-
tive findings pertaining to executive narcissism and firm outcomes
(e.g., Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009), other research
and theory is more mixed or dynamic (Galvin, Waldman, &
Balthazard, 2010; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). For example,
Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007) demonstrated that a CEO’s
narcissistic tendencies to be positively related to the dynamism
of a company’s strategy, the number and size of acquired
companies, the extremity of the company’s performance and the
fluctuation in the company’s performance. As another example,
Galvin, Waldman, et al. (2010) showed that narcissist tendencies
could lead to bolder, but less socialized, visions. Further, Li and
Tang (2010), using a sample from China, explored the relationship
between CEO hubris and firm risk taking and found that the
relationship is moderated by managerial discretion and other
institutional factors, such as environmental conditions of target
market, organizational inertia, duality of CEO and Chair on board,
and so forth.
We suggest that it is important to conduct cross-cultural
research on the effects of strategic leaders’ personalities. In
different cultures, people place different weights on various
leadership traits. For example, narcissism is a personality that is
discussed primarily in the Western literature, in accordance with
cultures that tend to advocate individualism (Chatterjee &
Hambrick, 2007). However, Chinese society is rooted in Confucian
philosophy and is collectivistic in nature. Personality character-
istics such as narcissism may be much less accepted than those in
Western societies. Accordingly, humility, defined as ‘‘personal
orientation founded on a willingness to see the self accurately and
a propensity to put oneself in perspective’’ (Morris, Brotheridge, &
Urbanski, 2005:1331), may match Eastern cultures better and
deserves future research.
For example, we are starting to see work on over-confidence
(Malmendier & Tate, 2008) and humility (Collins, 2001; Ou, 2011).
It may be promising to consider both narcissism/hubris and
humility simultaneously since Ou (2011) showed that the two are
not strongly correlated. That is, it may actually be possible for an
executive to be somewhat narcissistic, while maintaining a degree
of humility. Perhaps such leaders are most in line with the ‘‘good to
great’’ leaders identified by Collins (2001).
At the middle-manager level, existing studies have already
proved that the personality-leadership link differs by culture. For
example, Silverthorne (2001) made a cross-cultural comparison
between effective middle-level leaders and non-effective middle-
level leaders among three countries: China, Thailand, and United
States. He found that in the U.S. sample, effective leaders are more
emotionally stable, more extraverted, more open to experience,
more agreeable, and more conscientious. However, in the Thailand
sample, only emotional stability and extraversion yielded signifi-
cant differences between effective vs. non-effective leaders. In the
Chinese sample, the differences were especially strong for two
dimensions: emotional stability and conscientiousness, and there
were not significant differences on the dimension of openness to
experience. Such differences are in part due to the Chinese
Confucian philosophy that highly values social order, conformity,
harmony and interpersonal relationships (Redding & Wong, 1986;
Punnett, 1994).
Despite the above rationale, to date, most research on leaders’
personalities across cultures has focused on middle-level man-
agers (Silverthorne, 2001; Shao & Webber, 2006), rather than on
executive leaders. We encourage more cross-cultural research
dealing with the effects of executive personality on organizational
outcomes.
5. Values
Values represent enduring beliefs (Rokeach, 1973) that reflect a
broad tendency to engage in behaviors related to those beliefs
(Hambrick & Brandon, 1988; Hofstede & Bond, 1984). The enduring
nature of values makes them more powerful than attitudes or even
emotions in predicting people’s behaviors. Early on, England
(1967) described several mechanisms through which values can
influence managers in terms of their perceptions of situations and
problems, their decisions and solutions to problems, their
interpersonal relationships, their perception of individual and
organizational success or achievements, and their acceptance or
resistance of organizational pressures.
At the organizational level, there are mixed results on the
relationship between personal values and organizational out-
comes. Agle, Mitchell, and Sonnenfeld (1999) found no significant
relationship between CEO values and corporate performance.
Similarly, Akaah and Lund (1994) showed that although organiza-
tional values could predict ethical behavior, personal values could
not. However, Berson, Oreg, and Dvir (2008), using Israeli
companies in their research, showed that CEOs’ values would
impact organizational outcomes through the development of
organizational culture.
There is some cross-cultural research involving executives’
values. For example, Hood (2003) identified four kinds of values:
personal, social, competency-based, and morality-based. In his
research, transformational leadership was closely related to all
these values, while transactional leadership was only related to
personal values. Fu et al. (2010) noted that, in China, the
relationship between a CEO’s transformational behaviors and
middle managers’ affective commitment or intention to leave
depends on the CEO’s values. Specifically, the relationship will be
the weakest when CEOs have a lower level of self-transcendent,
and a higher level of self-enhancement, values. Furthermore,
Waldman, de Luque, Washburn, House et al. (2006) linked societal
culture, CEO visionary leadership and integrity, and social
responsibility values. In sum, although there are some studies
focusing on cross-cultural or cross-national differences in values
(e.g., Bateman, O’Neill, & Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2002; Schwartz, 1992),
we do not know why or how those differences may influence
organization-level effectiveness. More research is needed to
compare the different values at leadership levels and investigate
the causes and effects of values differences.
6. Cognitive style
One of the core ideas of the upper echelons perspective is that
the strategies of organizations are reflections of the cognitive bases
of executives (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Finkelstein et al., 2009).
Therefore, in the strategic leadership literature, increasing atten-
tion has been given to executives’ cognitive style. Constructs like
mental maps, meta-learning, and mindsets all deal with the mental
models that guide decision-makers to deal with complex problems
(March & Simon, 1958; Simon & Barnard, 1976). According to the
bounded rationality (Simon, 1991) and managerial cognition
(Weick, 1995) literatures, during the information filtering process,
an executive’s cognition serves as a lens through which the
 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
executive defines the situation (Dutton & Duncan, 1987), finds the
problems and responds (Cyert & March, 1963). Therefore, CEOs
with different cognitive styles demonstrate different behaviors
toward a specific situation.
However, cognitive styles are not entirely determined by innate
factors, and numerous studies have shown the impact of the leader’s
environment or context. For example, Calori, Johnson, and Sarnin
(1994) noted that in a firm with a variety of businesses, the CEO’s
cognitive maps are more comprehensive and less connected. These
studies are called situated cognition studies, which originated from
the pioneering work of a Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1896–
1934). He put much emphasis on the importance of cultural,
historical and institutional contexts for cognition, highlighting the
use of ecological approaches in psychology (Barnett & Karson, 1989).
Specifically, within the scope of strategic leadership, Geletkanycz
(1997) suggested that culture played an important role in terms of
impacting an executive’s mindset, and executives exposed to
different cultures were not likely to show an equal attitude toward
strategic change or had the same leadership profile. According to
recent research, individuals exposed to multiple cultures have
multiple cognitive systems and flexible action frameworks (Hong &
Chiu, 2001). In other words, people across cultures are likely to
demonstrate different cognitive systems and styles. For example,
compared with Western people holding analytical cognitive style
usually, Chinese people more frequently exhibit comprehensive,
integral, and dialectic thinking style (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, &
Norenzayan, 2001; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Accordingly, when
processing complex information, leaders can practice paradoxical
cognition patterns. In other words, they tolerate, coordinate and
integrate conflicting factors (Smith & Tushman, 2005).
Specifically, in many East Asian countries, executives share a
common cognitive style known as dialectic thinking (Lloyd, 1990;
Zhang & Chen, 1991). It is characterized in terms of a tolerance for
contradictions, expectation for change, and cognitive holism. This
cognitive style is rooted in the traditional Chinese philosophy,
Taoism, which argues that any contradictions are opposed, but
connected and mutually controlled, and they could exist in an
active harmony.
Dialectic thinking or cognition may drive executives to show
distinctive behaviors in Eastern societies, although until now there
are quite limited empirical tests on this topic. In a theoretical
paper, Wang and Huang (2011) proposed that leaders with high
levels of dialectic thinking style will show power sharing and
management control simultaneously, as well as put strategic
emphasis on both exploration and exploitation simultaneously.
Although dialectical thinking evolved largely from Eastern
philosophical traditions, the concept of paradoxes is not totally
missing in Western-based thought (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). For
example, Sagie (1997) suggested the loose-tight principle,
whereby leaders need to simultaneously have tight control
mechanisms (e.g., rules or procedures), but be willing to bend
those mechanisms (i.e., be more ‘‘loose’’), should circumstances
dictate the need to do so. As another example, Peters (1991)
directly considered the value of paradoxes. Indeed, he specifically
pointed out that the ‘‘guiding premise’’ to effective leadership in
the future would be the ability to deal with paradoxes. It is
interesting to note that a number of Peters’ (1991) original ideas
were pursued further by subsequent management ‘‘gurus’’ and
even management/leadership theorists over the past two decades.
However, until recently (see Smith & Lewis, 2011), the notion of
paradoxes has not received much notoriety or further attention in
the management literature. With that said, perhaps the time is ripe
for a better understanding of the management of paradoxes in
different cross-cultural settings.
To sum up, cognitive activities intertwine both mental nature
and social characteristics. Therefore, executives’ perceptions of
575
environmental information may not be universal across people in
different locations/cultures, or at all times. From this perspective, it
is important to conduct cross-cultural studies on executives’
cognitive style.
7. Leadership behaviors
Following Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) framework, many
scholars have tested the effects of executive behaviors on
organizational performance. For example, House, Spangler, and
Woycke (1991) proposed a charismatic theory of leadership and
analyzed the leadership effects of U.S. presidents. They found
presidential charisma to be associated with presidential perfor-
mance, particularly during periods of crises. Using an industrial
sample, Waldman et al. (2001) also showed that CEO charismatic
leadership behavior is significantly related to firm performance,
especially under the condition of high environmental uncertainty.
Waldman and Yammarino (1999) developed a formal model to
explain the charisma of a CEO and its potential effects on
organizational outcomes. In their model, charismatic executives
influence organizational performance by their effects throughout
lower levels of management. They proposed that key behaviors of
charismatic leaders include articulating a vision, making sense of
the mission, showing determination, and communicating high
performance expectations. The favorable effects of charismatic
leadership behaviors on followers include generating followers’
confidence in the leader, making followers feel good in the leader’s
presence, and obtaining strong admiration or respect from the
employees – even to the extent of sacrificing self-interest to follow
the dreams or goals of the charismatic leader (House et al., 1991;
Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). More recent theorizing would
suggest that charismatic executives also use surrogates and
networking to spread the word regarding their charismatic
behaviors and ideas (Galvin, Balkundi, & Waldman, 2010).
In addition to these studies and theory development in the
West, similar leadership behaviors have also been investigated in
other cultures. For example, Fu et al. (2010) conducted research to
investigate the relationship between CEO transformational beha-
viors and middle managers’ affective commitment or intentions to
leave. Based on previous research on strategic leadership
behaviors, Wang et al. (2011) developed an indigenous measure
of strategic leadership behaviors specific to Chinese organizations.
They also investigated the effects of these leadership behaviors on
firm performance, as mediated by employees’ attitudes towards
their organizations.
However, there has been less research on how culture may
influence executive leadership behaviors and their effects.
Whether effective leadership behaviors are culture-specific (emic)
or universal (etic) has long been a controversial issue. A generally
accepted view is that both emic leadership behaviors and etic
leadership behaviors exist (Bass, 1990; Dorfman et al., 1997), but
increasing attention is being given to the emic position.
For example, scholars have found that effective leadership in
China is somewhat different from that in the Western literature.
For example, Ling (1991) found the Chinese leadership included
three elements, that is, C (moral character), P (performance), M
(relationship maintenance). Further, Westwood (1997), and Farh
and Cheng (2000) focused on the paternalistic leadership style in
China. Based on data from leaders in the Chinese mainland, Tsui,
Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu (2004) and Wang, Xin, and Tsui (2006)
discovered six leadership behavior dimensions and four leadership
styles. Misumi and Peterson (1985) identified PM, in terms of
performance-oriented and maintenance-oriented, as the most
effective leadership behaviors in Japanese society. Sinha (1980)
noted that nurturing task leaders demonstrated effective beha-
576 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
viors (concern for both task and relationships simultaneously) in
Indian society.
In further research, Westwood and Chan (1992) identified a
father-like leadership style in Asian societies and called it
paternalism leadership. This style contains three sub-meanings:
clear and strong authority, concern and considerateness and
morality. Moreover, Rodrigues (1990) stated several possible
relationships between culture dimensions and leadership beha-
viors. For example, directive leadership may be more effective in
societies with high power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty
avoidance. However, supportive leadership may be more effective
in societies with moderate power distance and collectivism.
Lastly, there may be cultural contingencies in manifesting some
‘‘etic’’ leadership behaviors. For example, Bass (1997) argued that
transformational leadership behaviors can be either autocratic and
directive, or democratic and participative. In individualistic
societies like the U.S., transformational leaders will be expected
to show participative behaviors, whereas in collectivistic societies
like China, transformational leaders will be expected to show
directive behaviors.
8. Future research directions
According to the above review, we observe that cross-cultural,
strategic leadership is still in the early stage of development, yet
highly promising. Theoretically, this topic is related to both
leadership and cross-cultural research that could draw on a range
of perspectives. It is a research area from which new theories and
perspectives could emerge. Practically, there is an increased speed
of globalization with regard to business, and taking culture into
account could be beneficial to strategic leaders and their
organizations. From this standpoint, understanding executive
leadership across cultures is of great importance.
Based on upper echelons theory, our article provides an
overview to illustrate how culture matters to strategic leadership
studies. In our analysis, culture can influence strategic leadership
prototypes or leadership effectiveness through five aspects:
observable experiences, personality, values, cognitive style, and
leadership behaviors. In other words, culture can serve as either
an antecedent or moderator to influence different aspects of
executive leaders. We believe that the above review will improve
our knowledge of strategic leadership. However, we also admit
that our review has left many questions that deserve future
investigation. Below, we summarize possible future research
directions.
8.1. The role of culture
First and foremost, we encourage researchers to investigate the
role of culture related to strategic leadership and also its effects on
organizational outcomes. Our review suggests that different
aspects of strategic leadership are influenced by culture. However,
we still lack knowledge of the mechanisms regarding how culture
influences strategic leadership.
In order to fill such a gap, as a prerequisite, we must first
identify specific cultural dimensions. Some scholars have already
made initial attempts in this direction. For example, Walumbwa
and Lawler (2003) chose collectivism as an influencing dimension.
Using data from 577 employees from three emerging economies
(China, India, and Kenya), they found that collectivism strengthens
the relationships between transformational leadership and work-
related outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and perceptions of organizational withdrawal behaviors.
Jung, Bass, and Sosik (1995) provided several perspectives to
understand this phenomenon, such as leaders’ emphasis on
collective goals and achievements, as well as followers’ respect
and obedience toward their leaders, both of which are consistent
with the spirit of collectivism.
These studies support the effect of culture. Yet their samples are
limited to employees whose direct leaders are not executives. It is
unclear whether researchers could generate the same conclusions
with regard to executive leadership. Moreover, partly because of
the ambiguous boundaries of ‘‘culture’’, most existing studies have
not systematically examined the cultural impact on strategic
leadership. In the future, we need a theoretical framework with a
cross-cultural perspective to guide and narrow strategic leadership
research. Hofstede’s (1980) framework is a very basic and helpful
starting point, but we need more work in this direction (House
et al., 2004). Cross-cultural research with strategic leaders as
participants is very important to this line of research. We could
make direct comparisons regarding the differences of strategic
leaders across cultures or nations in terms of observable
experience, personality, values, cognitive style, and behaviors.
We may also treat culture as a moderating factor to investigate the
influence of strategic leaders on organizational outcomes, which
may vary across different cultures.
Cross-cultural comparisons within a single study, usually
considering culture as a moderator, can also help us differentiate
etic from emic leadership. Although the increasing attention on
Eastern society has identified some different manifestations of
leaders’ characteristics, we still do not have studies to explain the
role of culture. For example, in the West, scholars have put much
effort into studying the characteristic of narcissism (e.g., Finkel-
stein et al., 2009; Galvin, Balkundi, et al., 2010), whereas humility
is a characteristic more salient in Eastern society. Scholars have
already begun to pay attention to the characteristic of humility
(e.g. Morris et al., 2005). Nevertheless, we are aware of no research
that has addressed the basic question of whether Western leaders
exhibit more narcissistic behaviors than their Eastern counter-
parts. Moreover, we still need to know whether narcissistic
leadership is more effective than humble leadership in Western
society, and vice versa. To date, many of our answers to these
questions are from observations; yet they lack empirical support.
In the future, we encourage testing the impact of both narcissism
and humility in various cultural contexts, and only through such
actual cross-cultural comparisons, can we accurately answer these
basic questions.
8.2. Indigenous study of strategic leaders
Another area of research related to the role of culture is
indigenous studies. It is necessary and promising to conduct
indigenous studies in a specific culture and further to identify new
important executive characteristics in order to understand the role
of culture. Leaders, especially executive leaders, usually show
complex characteristics or behaviors. However, in the past few
decades, only the characteristics or behaviors that are prominent in
the Western society, or emanating out of Western management
theories, have been paid sufficient attention.
For example, charismatic leadership (e.g., House, 1977;
Simonton, 1987) and transformational leadership (e.g., Bass,
1997) have dominated leadership research for quite a long time.
Both styles rely on individual charisma and inspiration. The
popularity of these kinds of leadership studies is deeply rooted in
the prototype of a leader in Western society. However, how do
people define and perceive a leader or a leader’s roles in other
cultures? Using strict experimental studies, Menon, Sim, Fu, Chiu,
and Hong (2010) demonstrated that American leaders are more
likely to stand ahead of groups, while Asian leaders are more likely
to stand in the middle or behind groups. In other words, American
leaders lead through ‘‘vision’’ or ‘‘charisma’’ while Asian leaders
lead through ‘‘control’’ or ‘‘participation’’.
 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
The results of this study do not necessarily imply that
charismatic leadership or transformational leadership, where
leaders usually stand ahead, is not effective in Eastern society.
Yet it does call for some attention to different leadership
definitions and leaders’ roles in different cultures. Conducting
indigenous studies in other cultures is an ideal way to find
overlooked leader characteristics, making leadership theory more
complete and much richer. Indigenous studies in a specific culture
could also serve as the base for conducting cross-cultural research
(e.g., Avolio, 2007). Moreover, these indigenous studies can trigger
deeper thinking on the origin of certain leadership characteristics
or behaviors. For example, many Eastern leadership studies are
based on Confucianism and the Art of the War (Feng, 2007), both
helping us understand the emergence of indigenous, Eastern
leadership characteristics. In short, it may be possible to learn new
ways of managing from indigenous studies based on Eastern
traditions or thinking that could be applied to a Western context.
We note that this theme is actually the focus of an upcoming
special issue of the Academy of Management Journal.
8.3. Emergence and development patterns of strategic leaders
To understand strategic leadership better, it is interesting and
promising to conduct research on how strategic leaders emerge
and develop from different countries. This line research could trace
the socio-economic environments influencing the emergence of
strategic leaders, as well as the reasons that lead to their successes
and failures. We need to know what kinds of individuals, in terms
of observable experience and personal characteristics variables,
are more likely to become leaders in different cultures, what kinds
of leaders are more likely to survive and adapt to different
environments, and the types of strategic leaders that are more
likely to be considered successful by their followers in different
countries.
For example, we may introduce the perspective of followership
into the cross-cultural strategic leadership research. Hollander
(1978) once defined leadership as the union of leaders, followers,
and situations, from which we can see the significant role of
followers. Culture not only directly influences leadership proto-
types or leadership effectiveness, but it can also indirectly generate
impact through followers. On the one hand, followers differ across
cultures in their preference and stereotypes of leaders (Earley,
1984). Such preferences and stereotypes may greatly shape
leaders’ characteristics. For example, DeRue and Ashford (2010)
have suggested that the leader’s identity cannot be developed
without collective endorsement.
On the other hand, the contingency model of leadership
includes numerous moderating factors related to followers such as
their loyalty, support, cooperation with leaders (Fiedler, 1967);
experience, skills, and confidence (House, 1971); and maturity
level (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Followers may show systematic
differences across cultures, and these differences can influence the
effectiveness of leadership. For example, Chinese people respect
authority (Begley & Tan, 2001), and therefore followers in the
leader-member exchange relationship may show more obedient
behaviors. It is quite possible that such conformity will make
coercive or control behaviors more effective in China.
Future research on the emergence and development patterns of
strategic leaders through different societal and environmental
factors, as well as different followers, is important to understand-
ing the phenomenon of strategic leadership, especially from the
perspective of cross-cultural research. The configuration of these
factors identified across different cultures or nations will be helpful
to understand the emphasis and key factors of strategic leadership
from different cultures. It should be also beneficial in terms of
unfolding the nature of strategic leaders. The variables that could
577
be used to conduct this type of research are also very rich. Sources
could include books, cases, and documents on successful CEOs.
Content analysis could be employed to identify the developmental
patterns of these strategic leaders.
8.4. Multiple-level research on strategic leadership
One possible frontier in the future is to conduct cross-cultural
strategic leadership research at multiple levels. This is an effective
way to enrich existing theories of leadership. For example, by
examining individualized consideration at three different levels,
Avolio and Bass (1995) successfully extended Bass’s 1985 theory
(Bass, 1985) of transformational leadership. Multiple-level re-
search on strategic leadership will be helpful for us to understand
the mechanism through which strategic leadership may impact
organizational outcomes.
Strategic leadership studies are inherently multi-level in
nature. Although the upper-echelons model was originally more
focused on the individual level (single executive), over time, many
scholars have focused on the TMT as whole in terms of the level of
analysis (e.g., Cannella & Holcomb, 2005). Further, executive
leaders or TMTs can generate multi-level impact across hierarchi-
cal echelons. For example, Waldman and Yammarino (1999) and
Galvin, Balkundi, et al. (2010) proposed models suggesting that the
CEO’s charisma can influence both close and distant followers, and
such an influence is necessary to ensure outcomes at multiple
levels including individual and group effort, group cohesion,
employees’ attitudes, stakeholders’ responses, and financial
performance at the firm level.
Strategic leadership research at multiple levels of analysis,
especially focusing on the mediators and moderators between
strategic leaders and organizational outcomes, will be important in
terms of exploring the ‘‘black box’’ of leadership effects. Through
such research, we will have a better understanding of the
mechanisms of how and when strategic leaders have an impact
on organizational outcomes in terms of financial performance,
employee attitudes towards organizations, and responses from
different stakeholders.
8.5. Further methodological issues
This emerging field will require more cutting-edge and rigorous
methods in the future. For a long time, cross-cultural studies have
been criticized by simply using a nation as a proxy for culture (Tsui,
Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Indeed, most existing studies on this theme
have used this method. In the future, we suggest two directions
that may potentially address this issue. First, researchers might use
cultural dimensions, rather than nations, as antecedents or
moderators. The most ideal way is to conduct the research in a
cultural contact situation. For example, we might do research
involving a joint venture in which the top management team
includes members from different cultures. Second, we should pay
more attention to mediating processes and make clear what the
influencing mechanism is. This will help us identify which factors
in this process are more likely to be influenced by culture. For
example, statistical techniques have matured to the point of being
able to integrate mediation and moderation simultaneously
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).
In strategic leadership studies, some of the largest challenges
pertain to data collection and measurement. To date, there are two
ways that we can obtain data from executives. One is the survey-
based approach, such as the one used in large projects like GLOBE.
The other is the coding approach relying on media or other public
materials.
In the future, we suggest more diverse methods to collect data
and measure leadership characteristics. For example, researchers
578 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
might code the characteristics of executives from other sources,
including their blogs and twitter messages, which are instant and
perhaps more credible. A more creative direction is to link
leadership theory to bioscience or neuroscience. Some initial
studies have already shown the importance of this direction. For
example, based on a sample of female twins, Chaturvedi, Arvey,
Zhang, and Christoforou (in press) found that 49% of the variance in
transformational leadership can be explained by genetic factors.
De Neve, Mikhaylov, Dawes, Christakis, and Fowler (2011) even
demonstrated that leadership is associated with rs4950, a single
nucleotide polymorphism (SMP) residing on a neuronal acetyl-
choline receptor gene CHRNB3. This is the first study that identifies
specific genotypes that may be linked to leadership, and there is
great room for further studies in this direction.
As another example, using quantitative electroencephalogram
(qEEG) technology, Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson (2011) and
Balthazard, Waldman, Thatcher, and Hannah (in press) have
recently demonstrated differences regarding brain activity among
transformational and inspiring leaders. In sum, the work of Arvey
and colleagues, as well as Waldman and colleagues, has considered
leadership from quite original perspectives and may offer us new
insight to understand cross-cultural strategic leadership.
Strategic leadership, especially from the cross-cultural per-
spective is a promising research area and deserves further
attention from scholars. Not only the issues listed above deserve
research, but other topics may be relevant as well. This kind of
research will be helpful to understand the mechanisms by which
strategic leaders influence organizational outcomes. However,
there is only limited research on cross-cultural comparisons with
regard to strategic leadership in the literature. We call on scholars
to conduct strategic leadership across different cultures or nations
to enrich our understanding of effective leadership.
9. Managerial relevance
Our paper also has managerial implications. The findings
summarized and future research directions raised here are
important for the strategic leaders of organizations, especially
those who are from multinational corporations (MNCs). Specifi-
cally, our paper can provide insight for executives in terms of
rethinking their leadership behavior in an increasingly global
context. On the basis of our review, strategic leaders’ personal
characteristics including observable and psychological aspect will
differently impact the firms across nations.
According to Caligiuri and Tarique (2009), global leaders play an
important role in developing competitive advantages, and MNCs
increasingly use global leaders to expand overseas business.
Therefore, the selection and promotion of global leaders become a
critical challenge for MNCs. Based on our findings, the selection
and promotion systems of MNCs should address numerous factors
relevant to individual leaders, including observed personal
experiences, personalities, values, and cognitive styles. It is
important to identify characteristics of leaders who may perform
well across diverse cultures, as well as of those who may be most
suitable to specific cultural environments.
In addition, leadership effectiveness at strategic level is
contingent to cultures. Thus, executives should adjust their
leadership behaviors and styles when exposed to different cultural
backgrounds. Correspondingly, executive training and develop-
ment programs should be designed to help executives gain such
knowledge on cultural differences and the nature of specific
strategic leadership behaviors that would fit in specific cultures. As
suggested by Waldman et al. (2011), in the near future, we may
even begin to see neuroscience-based applications to the
development of global leaders.
Finally, our work would suggest that it may be a time to rethink
a common perspective about the transfer of learning in terms of
best managerial practices between the West and East. Specifically,
heretofore, the common paradigm has been for Eastern leaders
(e.g., Chinese) to attempt to derive effective managerial practice
based on what we know about managerial effectiveness in the
West. In other words, the knowledge transfer regarding best
practices was unidirectional – from West to East. However, in a
more global environment, it may also be possible for Western
managers to learn or reconsider their practices based on Eastern
thought. For example, as stated previously, dealing with paradoxes
is a universal challenge for managers, and has been recognized as
such by both Western and Eastern writers. Nevertheless, the
embracing of paradoxes may be something that is more natural to
Eastern managers based on tradition and culture, and thus, it may
behoove Western managers to attempt to learn from their Eastern
counterparts. Overall, the two-way interplay or knowledge sharing
of best managerial practices between the East and West can only
serve to strengthen organizations in the increasingly global
environment of the 21st century.
References
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An
investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and
CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–525.
Akaah, I. P., & Lund, D. (1994). The influence of personal and organizational values on
marketing professionals’ ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 417–430.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62: 25–33.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 199–218.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. Differentiating
transformational and non-transformational leaders on the basis of neurological
imaging. Leadership Quarterly, in press.
Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1989). Managers, values, and executive decisions: An
exploration of the role of gender, career stage, organizational level, function, and
the importance of ethics, relationships and results in managerial decision-making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 747–771.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18: 19–31.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52:
130–139.
Bateman, T. S., O’Neill, H., & Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of
top managers’ goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1134–1148.
Begley, T. M., & Tan, W. L. (2001). The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship:
A comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 32: 537–553.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm
outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 615–633.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities.
Journal of World Business, 44: 336–346.
Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). CEOs’ cognitive maps and the scope of the
organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 437–457.
Cannella, A. A., & Holcomb, T. R. (2005). A multi-level analysis of the upper-echelons
model. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Multi-
level issues in strategy and method (pp. 197–238). Oxford: JAI-Elsevier Science.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive
officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 52: 351–386.
Chaturvedi, S., Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., & Christoforou, P. T. Genetic underpinnings of
transformational leadership: the mediating role of dispositional hope. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, in press.
Chen, C., & Sun, J. H. (2008). Entrepreneurs’ demographic characteristics and their
diversified strategic options. Management World, 5: 124–138 (in Chinese).
Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company
performance part I. Journal of Management Studies, 11: 175–189.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap. . .and others don’t.
New York: Jim Collins.
Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through leadership of organi-
zational learning. In N. Bontis (Ed.), The strategic management of intellectual capital
and organizational knowledge (pp. 711–723). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M. A., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team
characteristics and corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management Review, 20:
138–170.
Dearborn, D. W. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the
departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21: 140–144.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process
of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 35: 627–647.
De Neve, J., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2011). Born to
lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership. Working paper
series.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective
leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds.),
Advances in international comparative management (pp. 127–150). New York: JAI
Press.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997).
Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences
in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8:
233–274.
Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the
process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 279–295.
Earley, P. (1984). Social interaction: The frequency of use and valuation in the United
States, England and Ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15: 477–485.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psy-
chological Methods, 12: 1–22.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of
Management Journal, 10: 53–68.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organiza-
tions in the Chinese context (pp. 94–127). London: Macmillan.
Feng, H. (2007). Chinese strategic culture and foreign policy decision-making: Confucian-
ism, leadership and war. New York: Routledge.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organiza-
tional outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35: 484–503.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their
effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN West Publishing.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic
leadership on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal,
25: 309–330.
Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’
transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly,
55: 222–254.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United
States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 251–266.
Galvin, B. M., Balkundi, P., & Waldman, D. A. (2010). Spreading the word: The role of
surrogates in charismatic leadership processes. Academy of Management Review,
35: 477–494.
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication
qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions
of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63: 509–537.
Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of culture’s consequences: The effects of
cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 18: 615–634.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and
firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discre-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 844–863.
Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the
strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1): 5L 15.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management
Review, 32: 334–343.
Hambrick, D. C., & Brandon, G. L. (1988). Executive values. In D. C. Hambrick & S.
Finkelstein (Eds.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top
managers (pp. 3–34). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New
insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 30: 472–491.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection
of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as
separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
32: 1199–1228.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of
(hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management
Journal, 26: 297–319.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Man-
agement Executive, 7: 81–94.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 15: 417–433.
579
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships.
New York: Free Press.
Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in
social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cogni-
tion, 19: 181–196.
Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical
practices in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43: 263–273.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16: 321–339.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23: 409–473.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership,
culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and
implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE.
Journal of World Business, 37: 3–10.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36: 364–396.
Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. (2004). Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demo-
graphic preferences and structural differences shape the scope of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 25: 507–524.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751–765.
Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical
consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2: 3–18.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and
executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1314–1344.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The
compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review,
23: 325–340.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization
Science, 8: 1–22.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic
faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 48: 794–813.
Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of
managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 45–68.
Ling, W. Q. (1991). Leadership in the PRC. In Z. F. Yang & S. R. Gao (Eds.), Chinese and
Chinese soul (pp. 409–448). Taiwan: Yuan Liu. (in Chinese).
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1990). Demystifying mentalities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and
the market’s reaction. Journal of Financial Economics, 89: 20–43.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization. New York: Wiley.
McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational
Dynamics, 22: 67–79.
Menon, T., Sim, J., Fu, J. H. Y., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2010). Blazing the trail versus trailing
the group: Culture and perceptions of the leader’s position. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 113: 51–61.
Miller, D., & Toulouse, J. M. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy
and structure in small firms. Management Science, 32: 1389–1409.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21: 402–433.
Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. F. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisci-
plinary Japanese research program. The University of Michigan Press.
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership:
Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58: 1323–
1350.
Musteen, M., Barker, V. L., III, & Baeten, V. L. (2006). CEO attributes associated with
attitude toward change: The direct and moderating effects of CEO tenure. Journal of
Business Research, 59: 604–612.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108: 291–310.
Ou, A. Y. (2011). CEO humility and its relationship with middle manager behaviors and
performance: Examining the CEO-middle manager interface. Doctoral dissertation.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American Psychologist, 54: 741–754.
Peters, T. (1991). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York:
Harper-Perennial.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and
organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42: 185–227.
Punnett, B. J. (1994). Preliminary considerations of Confucianism and needs in the PRC.
Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 1: 25–42.
Redding, G., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational
behaviour. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 267–
295). New York: Oxford University Press.
580 H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571–580
Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and
the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism,
transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94: 1365–1381.
Rodrigues, C. A. (1990). The situation and national culture as contingencies for
leadership behavior: Two conceptual models. Advances in International Compara-
tive Management: A research Annual, 5: 51–68.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making:
Contradictory or compatible practices. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46: 387–452.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25: 1–65.
Shao, L., & Webber, S. (2006). A cross-cultural test of the ‘five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership’. Journal of Business Research, 59:
936–944.
Silverthorne, C. (2001). Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross cultural
evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 30: 303–309.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2: 125–134.
Simon, H. A., & Barnard, C. I. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making
processes in administrative organization. New York: The Free Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model.
Strategic Management Journal, 28: 653–662.
Sinha, J. B. (1980). The nurturant-task leader: A model of the effective executive. New
Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic
equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381–403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top
management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16:
522–536.
Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and
Organization Review, 1: 1–13.
Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, L., & Fu, P. P. (2004). Variation of leadership styles
among Chinese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 33: 5–20.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organiza-
tional behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Man-
agement, 33: 426–478.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58: 515–541.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning.
Academy of Management Review, 29: 222–240.
Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Leadership and neuroscience.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 25: 60–74.
Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, N., Barrasa, A.,
et al. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility
values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37: 823–837.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership
matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived
environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134–143.
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational
leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43:
1703–1725.
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-
management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24:
266–285.
Walsh, J. P. (1988). Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers’
belief structures and information processing. Academy of Management Journal, 31:
873–896.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transforma-
tional leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal
behaviours in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14: 1083–1101.
Wang, H., & Huang, M. P. (2011). The dialectic thinking style of Chinese strategic
leaders and its effects on firm performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the academy of management.
Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviors, organizational
performance, and employees’ attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 92–105.
Wang, H., Xin, R., & Tsui, A. S. (2006). The effect of CEO leadership on firm performance
in China enterprises. Management World, 4: 87–96 (in Chinese).
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for paternalistic
headship among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18: 445–480.
Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: A Southeast Asian perspective (pp. 123–139). Hong Kong:
Longman.
Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under
differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48:
859–873.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A
multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45: 575–600.
Young, G. J., Charns, M. P., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and network effects on
the adoption of innovative management practices: A study of TQM in a public
hospital system. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 935–951.
Zhang, D., & Chen, Z. (1991). Zhong Guo Si Wei Pian Xiang. [The orientation of Chinese
thinking style]. Beijing: Social Science Press. (in Chinese).