The Effect of Culture on Leadership

Recently, a friend of mine was complaining about her supervisor. According to her, the boss claims to be “with the team,” but — from my friend’s viewpoint — the supervisor is incompetent to truly lead the team, so all he can do is to be with it.

Coincidentally, another friend of mine has also been complaining about her job. She posted a photo of a gang of wolves and highlighted the last wolf. “The powerful always looks after his fellows,” she stated in the post. Both friends’ complaints are intriguing because if they switch bosses they would both be satisfied!

This reminds me of a theory of leadership called implicit leadership theory (ILT). The ILT argues that everyone has his/her own ideal type of leader. For example, some people wish to be led by a powerful, dominant and performance-oriented leader. Still others would like to work with a low-profile leader who is considerate, caring and open for opinions.

In addition, employees perceive the same behavior of leaders differently because people have different viewpoints on what makes an ideal leader.

So, what causes these differences in how people feel about various types of leaders? One factor is culture. Different cultures foster completely different ways of thinking. Psychologists say culture affects human beings subconsciously. For example, research states Asians are more accepting of contradiction. If there is an article featuring two different arguments on capital punishment, Americans tend to judge one argument to be more convincing than the other. However, Chinese would rate both arguments equally convincing and have difficulty picking a side [1].

As a result, people from different cultures unconsciously select different information, perceive and process details differently, attribute the same event differently and respond differently to it. For example, different from Americans (individualist culture), Japanese (collectivist culture) tend to cooperate even if fully aware that not all parties receive equal benefits from mutual cooperation [2].

Now, how would culture affect people’s expectations of leadership?

Researchers conducted simulation studies in the U.S. and Singapore and compared responses from both countries. They first presented pictures of a group of objects, such as animated figures or fish, to the randomly invited participants and asked the participants to identify the leader of the group — simply based on their positions in the pictures.

There was always a trailblazing figure and a trailing-behind figure. Results showed that Singaporeans were more likely than Americans to identify figures behind their groups to be the leader [3]. Singaporeans also favored leaders in these positions more than Americans did.

This cross-cultural study suggests that, without any verbal description, those in a collectivist culture prefer leaders who can spot opportunities and threats that lie ahead, monitor the group, ensure stability and protect it from harm.

On the other hand, an individualist culture admires leaders who are assertive, stand in the front and challenge the status quo.

People have different expectations of their leaders, and there are more causes for these differences beyond culture. Discrepancy of expectations is inevitable.

When leading a team of more than two, what should a leader do?

The answer: Try to be flexible and adjust to employees’ different needs while upholding your most important values.

References

[1] Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and system of thoughts: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.

[2] Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Okumura, T., Brett, J. M., Moore, D. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Cognitions and behavior in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison of two cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 87.

[3] 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(1), 51–61.