Download Leadership v.5.1

Leadership in cross-cultural context
The case analysis by Piotr Jan Panasiuk & Anastasia
Alekseeva
Agenda
 Step I: Introduction
– Americans vs. Mexicans
 Step II: Problem Statement
– Cultural myopia
 Step III: Problem analysis: cultural perspective
– General factors: cultural, noncultural, interaction
– Cross-cultural: Hofstede, GLOBE
– Interaction problems
 Step IV: Solution
– Available alternatives
– Recommendations
Page  2
STEP 1:
INTRODUCTION
Page  3
Introduction
Americans vs Mexicans
 Mr. Smith
– My managers who, instead of solving the problems
themselves, wanted my adivce or make their decisions for
them
– They rarely make any comments on my decisions (…) the
responses are very diplomatic and guarded
– It seems that here, family and friends are very much involved
– They don’t even seem to understand the meaning of a
deadline
 Sr. Gonzalez
– The executive seems to be cold, impersonal, discourteous
and critical idividual
– To him, time is top priority in every aspect of our working life
– He said that personal feelings are not important and that we
must learn to overcome our senitivity to criticism
– He assumes that we are all equally accustomed to accepting
complete responsability
Page  4
Introduction
Americans vs Mexicans
American Approach
Mexican approach
– “Time is money”
– Time for family and leisure
– Deadllines and punctuality
– Time flexibility according to
situation
– Family and business issues are
separated
– Results oriented
– Open relation between
family/friends and business
– Formal solutions
– High sensetivity and respect
– High responsability delegation
– Informal Solutions
– Individualism
– Leader focused decisions
– Collectivism
Page  5
STEP 2:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Page  6
Problem statement
 Leadership is …
"...the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to
contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of
which they are members“
[GLOBE project definition]
 Inability to motivate people and as a result achieve the stated goal of
increasing productivity due to cultural myopia and absence of
dynamic interaction
Page  7
Problem statement
Cultural Myopia
 Cultural myopia means that you only focus on your own culture and have
little knowledge of or regard for other cultures
“Unfortunately, Mr. Smith seems to believe that we are all just dying to
embrace “the American way”.
Page  8
Problem statement
Dynamic Interaction
 LMX theory states that there is a dynamic interaction between the
leaders and the followers and that the leader's behavior both influences
and is influenced by the followers’.
 Interaction between the leader and the followers enforces knowledge
exchange and participants’ ability to question their own behavior and
adjust accordingly
 Despite the deep frustration and dissatisfactory results, Mr. Smith had
never questioned his behavior nor had he asked Mr. Gonzalez for
explanations/advice/clarifications
Page  9
STEP 3:
PROBLEM ANALYSIS:
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
Page  10
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
Framework for problem analysis
 The Hofstede study was taken as a benchmark when analyzing the
underlying cultural values, beliefs and assumptions due to period
consistency
Leadership
Interaction between the
leader and the followers
Page  11
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
The Hofstede study
 PDI – Power Distance Index
 IND – Individualism
 MAS – Masculanity/Feminity
 UAI – Uncertinity Avoidance
 LTO – Long term orientation
Page  12
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
The Hofstede study
 Biggest disproportion in the Individual/Collectivistic factor (61 pts) which
explains the high sence of connection between family and business isuess
 On the terms of Power Distance and Uncertinity Avoidance where the
diffrences are moderate (around 35-40 pts) we can understand the diffrent
approach towards responosibility perception and decision making processes.
Page  13
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
The GLOBE study
The USA are…
Mexico is…
4.49
Performance orientation
4.10
Performance orientation
4.15
Future orientation
3.87
Future orientation
3.34
Gender Egalitarianism
3.64
Gender Egalitarianism
4.55
Assertiveness
4.45
Assertiveness
4.2
Societal Institutional
Collectivism
4.06
Societal Institutional
Collectivism
4.25
(L)
Societal In-Group
Collectivism
4.15
Uncertainty avoidance
4.18
Uncertainty avoidance
4.17
Human orientation
3.98
Human orientation
4.88
Power distance
5.22
Power distance
5.71 (H) Societal In-Group
Collectivism
 To date, less striking difference in terms of power distance and uncertainty
avoidance is noticeable. Cultures’ convergence is obvious in all dimensions
except for…
Page  14
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
The GLOBE study
 In-group collectivism dimension still generates the most diverse results
– Being a member of a family or a close group of friends is very important
– Satisfying the expectations of the group is critical
 Performance orientation
 Power distance
Page  15
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
The GLOBE study
CEO’s mistakes
Dimension
Performance
orientation
•Excessive empowerment & delegation
•Focus on training and employees’ development
•Productivity at the expense of family bonds
•Recognition by results
In-group
collectivism
•Disregard of personal relationships and their role in
employees’ motivation (“…little sensitivity to human relations
aspect of management”).
•Wrong incentives (salary vs. enjoinment)
•No patience and understanding
Power distance
•Misunderstanding of his role as a leader (the leader as a sole
possessor of the ultimate truth)
•No tact in handling problems
Future orientation
•Plans ahead people
Page  16
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
Factors contributing to the problem
 List factors again
 Difference in underlying assumptions determines the leadership fit
The role of the leader
The decision making process
Time perception
In-group dynamics
Interactions with 3rd parties
For PowerPoint 97-2010
Page  17
The U.S. and Mexican
leadership styles
incompatibility
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
Leadership styles comparison: GLOBE project
Charismatic /
Value-Based
Team
Oriented
SelfProtective
Participative
Humane
Oriented
Autonomous
Resource: GLOBE’s Six “Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions
Page  18
Problem analysis: cultural perspective
Leadership styles comparison: GLOBE project
America
Mexico
Charismatic /
Value-Based
Visionary (plans ahead)
Integrity (just)
Performance Oriented
Inspirational (morale booster,
postivie feedback)
Self-Protective
Procedural
(formal, cautious)
Flexibility, Face saver
(avoiding negatives, Indirect)
Human
Oriented
Results oriented
Modesty, Compassionate
Team Oriented
Administrative
(organized, orderly)
Team collaborative,
Diplomatic
Participative
Participative (egalitarian,
delegator)
Autocratic
(bossy, dominatitng)
Autonomous
Individualistic
Collectivistic
Leadership
style
Delegative
Paternalistic
Page  19
STEP 4:
SOLUTION
Page  20
Solution
Existing alternatives
1
Do nothing
• “I still feel
that tight
control and
strict
approach are
the only way
to teach
them the
right way to
run a
business”
Page  21
2
Retrieve
• “…this plant
becomes
someone
else
headache,
and I shall
be very
contant to
return home
to the
situation I
understand”
3
4
Overcome
cultural myopia
Adjust the
leadership style
• “He did not
realize that he
was asking us
to change
customs which
have existed
for hundread of
years and are
deeply
embedded in
all Mexicans”
• “His main
obejctive
appears to be
dehumanize
the business
as much as
possible and to
convert people
into robots”
Solution
Recommendations: overcoming cultural myopia
Increase Mr. Smith exposure to the Mexican culture far
beyond the working environment
 Learn Spanish - obtain at least basic communication skills
 Show inerest in understanding local customs and mentality
 Socialize with employees – go beyond Expat Ghettos
 Be open-minded, flexible, recieve feedback
Page  22
Solution
Recommendations: adjusting the leadership style
 Create family atmosphere at work
– Increase the knowledge about his subordinates
– Recognize people not only as business resource but as complex individual
– Show more respect to private life and intergroup dynamics
 Respect subordination and hierarchy
–
–
–
–
Expect less proactivity from the employees
Be a boss
Specify all the tasks
Constant monitoring in order to ensure the work is going
 Motivate and inspire employees
– Recognition
– Implement less critical mindset
– Give more constructive feedback and work assesment
Paternalistic
Delegative
Page  23
Thank you for your time!
Q&A