Introduction

Leadership and management are important factors of organizational success. Yet

these factors are impacted by personal, organizational and cultural variables. Due
to the global nature of the current business environment, understanding the cultural
variable and its impact on leadership and management are more important than
ever before (Lok and Crawford, 2004)
This essay is written to identify different leadership and management styles used in
organizations based on empirical study. It will then address the impact of different
cultures on leadership and management styles based on established cross cultural
models and literature. The essay will also evaluate the personal experience of the
author to understand the parallels of leadership models to actual leadership styles
in the authors team and alignment of these styles to the different national cultures
considered.
Literature review
The study of leadership has been a topic of interest throughout history (Goffee and
Jones, 2000; House, 1997). Looking up towards leadership is a basic human trait
and throughout history, leaders have come up, be it in organizations or in nations,
who have changed history as we know it.
With changing trends in the business world, teams as we used to know it is no
longer the same and the requirement of leadership has changed based on the
situation, demography or economic condition (Hollenbeck, McCall, and Silzer, 2006).
In empirical study, there are many definitions of what a leader should be. Goleman
(1998) states that effective leaders can be recognized by high degree of emotional
intelligence, which includes self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy,
and social skill, in contrast Zaleznik (2004) describes leadership as a mythical state,
he mentions that leaders are like artists, tolerate chaos and lack of structure. They
keep answers in suspense, preventing premature closure on important issues. It is
very difficult to define leadership by a single statement as leaders are dynamic and
are generally different to each other (House et al., 2012). Yet, research has time and
again identified certain theories or models of leadership which have contrasted one
another and developed upon the previous theories of leadership.

There is also a school of thought, which says that managers and leaders are two
very different set of people (Zaleznik, 2004). Other literature states that leadership
and management must go hand in hand, though not the same thing, they are linked
and are complementary (Sharma and Jain, 2013) This is a subject matter which
needs further evaluation and for the purpose of this study, concepts leadership and
management will be used interchangeably.
Referring to the appendix 1, one can identify the changes leadership and
management theory has gone through across time. The evolution from trait theory
to transformational theory have showcased that leadership theory is a changing
science. With the introduction of cultural influences to leadership, the science of
leadership is now facing more changes than ever before.
A major criticism of early leadership theory is that it fails to recognize social
environments such as national culture, ethnicity or gender (Jogulu and Wood 2006).
There was also less empirical study on to the cultural impact of leadership. These
general leadership theories therefore can be subject to questioning on their real life
credibility (Jogulu and Ferkins, 2012).
Culture and Leadership
Similar to leadership, culture is also an evolving concept, as defined by House et al.,
(2012) culture is shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or
meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of
collectives and are transmitted across age generations
With globalization, the biggest challenge for leadership will be to understand and
acknowledge that there are cultural difference a leader has to face in a new country
which may be vastly different from a leaders on values and beliefs (Jogulu, 2010).
When it comes to leadership and culture, some researchers have identified that
social and national culture create the behncamark expectation of peoples idea of
an ideal leader (Grove and Llc, 2010; Jogulu, 2010). In contrast Dorfman et al.,
(2012) states that leadership is culture neutral, national culture doesnt directly
predict the leadership behavior but the leaders adaptability to the cultural
endorsed leadership theory determines the leadership behavior.
Malaysia and USA: Culture and leadership

Dorfman et al., (2012); Gupta & Hanges, (2004) discusses that regional cultures are
more often similar in the expected behavior from leadership. It is also identified that
western cultures and eastern cultures may not be generalizable when it comes to
leadership (Hofstede, 2001) Based on this, for the purpose of this essay the author,
though working in Sri Lanka will select Malaysia as a culture on which the leadership
literature review will be done as Sri Lanka and Malaysia share a similar socio
economic landscape (Attygalle, 2012). Since the author is part of a team which has
direct leadership from United States of America (USA), the second culture for review
will be USA.
Culture evaluation based on Hofesdes Model
There are multiple leadership models which are based on the impact of culture on
nations. For the purpose of this essay, the author has selected a popular model
based on empirical study.
In Hofesdes dimensions of national culture model (refer Appendix 2), national
cultures of different countries have been evaluated based on Power Distance,
Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty avoidance and Long term orientation.
Hofesdes model is aligned with Grove and Llc, (2010); Jogulu, (2010).
Defining Malaysia culture and USA Culture based on Hofsedes Model
Based on the Hofesdes dimensions of culture, power distance focuses on the level
of equality between the people in its society. According to (Hofstede, 2014) Malaysia
scores extremely high on this dimension. The ideal leader in Malaysian society is a
benevolent autocrat and challenges to leadership is not well received. USA falls
relatively low on the power distance dimension as opposed to Malaysia. As a
country, Americans are very strong on the justice and fair play, hierarchy in USA in
just for a matter of convenience, and not a must. Leaders are open to criticism (Kim,
2004).
Individualism in the model is defined as the degree of interdependence a society
maintains among its members. Malaysia scores low on this scale which defines
them as a collectivist society. Malaysians value leaders who treat employees like
family and consider them as teams not individuals when handling management
problems. USA has an extremely individualistic culture, individual freedom is

considered of the utmost importance. There is open lines of communication and

leaders are approachable.
Masculinity is recognized by the socially agreed gender norms. The Malaysians fall
in the middle ground in this regard with no particular inclination either way. America
as opposed to Malaysia is driven heavily by competition and achievement which
reflects in their highly masculine culture. Being seen as successful is extremely
important to assert leadership
On the Uncertainty avoidance scale, Malaysia is at the lower level, as a society they
are more relaxed and leaders are accepting of people venturing off the accepted
path (Yap, 2016). USA and Malaysia are similar on the uncertainty avoidance scale,
there is openness to a certain level of uncertainty which drives creativity and
change adaption
Long term Orientation is how each society has to maintain connections with the
past while dealing with the future. Malaysia has a normative culture with great
respect for tradition but expect quick results. On the long term orientation scale
USA scores are very low, showcasing that they are very short term oriented,
expecting quick results in business. In contrast the idea of one and only God exists
strongly and Americans have very strong opinions about what is good and evil
based on old traditions (Hofstede, 2014)
Review of literature on leadership and Culture for Malaysia and USA
GLOBE model: evaluation of Malaysia and USA culture based leadership
styles
Hofesdes model is useful to identify the culture of a nation but there is a need to
understand the impact of culture on leadership. In comparison to Hofesdes
dimensions of culture, it is discussed by Dorfman et al., (2012), that in the Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) model, the emphasis
is on the fact that there are specific culturally endorsed theory (CLTs) of leadership.
The people of the country through personal and group experience have developed
cultural expectations, the national cultural doesnt directly affect leaders behavior,
and it is rather peoples expectation on different CLTs and the leaders ability to
deliver on these that predict the acceptance of the leadership.

Malaysia falls under the Southern Asia cluster in the GLOBE model, and USA falls
into Anglo cluster. Based on the analaysis (refer Appendix 3 and 4) Team Oriented,
Humane leadership is positively endorsed among both clusters and autonomy was
negatively endorsed. Two dimensions of leadership were substantially different
between both cultures, which were participative leadership and self or group
protectiveness. Malaysians leaders are expected to be able to take decisions and
be able to protect the members of group while in USA individualism is strongly
valued, subordinates are expected to take part in decision making and have a more
active role in leadership. Protection of the individual is not expected from the
leaders. (Ashkanasy, 2007)
Impact of Malaysia and USA culture to the Transactional and
Transformation Theory of Leadership
Transactional and transformational leaderships have become the main focus of
leadership theories in recent years. (Jogulu and Ferkins, 2012), further in the same
research Jogulu and Ferkins, (2012) identifies that Subordinates in Asian cultures,
more so than in the West, prefer to work in an environment where the leader gives
them motivation and gives opportunity to showcase their talent. Abdullah (2001)
states that in Malaysia leadership authority s accepted irrevocably because it is
important to maintain the workplace harmony. Malaysia as a country is seen from
moving from a transactional leadership towards a transformational leadership style.
Transformational leadership is enacted differently in Asian cultures versus USA. The
collectivism and high power distance identified by Hofesdes Model may explain the
reason for the same. It is the hierarchical nature of Asian or specifically Malaysian
culture which encourage leaders to exhibit inspirational behavior towards
subordinates (Jogulu and Ferkins, 2012). In line with transactional leadership style,
Malaysian managers are still expected to correct or disciple subordinates when a
mistake is made, but this should be done discreetly to uphold value and tradition
(Jogulu, 2010). USA in contrast expected their transformational leaders to be
participative, due to being a highly individualist culture expect open lines of
communication with their leader (Bass, 1997). Bass (1997) further explains that the
impact of charismatic leadership in found to be more attractive is USA vs Asia. In a
counter argument, King and Wei, (2014) claims that USA though transitioning from a

transactional leadership style to transformational style, subordinates are still viewed

in a largely dehumanized manner as compared to Asian style of humanistic manner
Personal Team level experience and its congruence to the culture based
leadership literature
Working in a multinational company in Sri Lanka, there is a number of different
types leaders that can be found in the authors company representing different
cultures. As the mother company is based in United States, main leadership stems
from USA, which is highly hierarchical. This is going against the Hofesdes Model but
aligning with GLOBE model which states that leadership in more of adaptation of
leader to the countries culture. Since Asian cultures are having high power distance,
the leaders from USA are seen as untouchable heroes who could no wrong, these
leaders continue to maintain a level of distance with the subordinates to maintain
this attitude.
The companys top management which is the second level leadership is majority
Indian or Sri Lankan. They have a very collectivist approach to leadership, where the
leaders treat subordinates as family and are very protective of each leaders own
team. It is interesting to note that, the protection of team doesnt encompasses the
company as a whole but rather only those loyal to the leadership.
In line with the theory from Malaysia by Jogulu and Ferkins, (2012), a
transformational leadership is appreciated by subordinates. Leaders who are
charismatic and inspirational are held in high regard and subordinates though
expecting a certain amount of hand holding, also appreciates a sense of trust from
the leader to get the work done right. It would also be valuable to understand that,
at the lower levels of organizational structure, there is still a very much
transactional leadership style present, where employees are given independent
work but with heavy follow up by leaders. The reward and punishment method of
leadership is very much relevant in this section of the organization.
Conclusion
In conclusion, examining cultural factors and the influence they have on leadership
styles have shown that even though national culture doesnt directly influence
leadership, the leaders perception of national culture and subordinates
expectations from leadership, shape the kind of leadership to be found in different

cultures. With the effect of globalization expanding ever so rapidly, variations in

leadership styles will be the requirements in the global economy. It is very important
that organizational leaders understand the different styles of leadership required by
the different cultures to create the maximum leadership impact.

Citations
Abdullah, A. (2001) Understanding the Malaysian workforce: Guidelines for
managers. 1st edn. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Ashkanasy, N.M. (2007) Leadership in the Asian century: Lessons from globe,
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 5(3), pp. 150163.
Attygalle, K. (2012) Talkingeconomics - Malaysia and Sri Lanka: Dilemmas of the
development process. Available at:

http://www.ips.lk/talkingeconomics/2012/04/29/malaysia-and-sri-lanka-dilemmas-ofthe-development-process/ (Accessed: 22 April 2016).

Avolio, B. and Bass, B. (2004) Multi-factor leadership questionnaire. 3rd edn. United
States: Mind Garden.
Bass, B.M. (1997) Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries?, American Psychologist, 52(2),
pp. 130139.
Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M.M. (1990) Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial applications. 3rd edn. New York: Collier
Macmillan.
Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003) A Review of
Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks, Centre for Leadership Studies.
Available at: http://www2.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/luisrodrigues/textos/Lideran
%C3%A7a.pdf (Accessed: 17 April 2016).
Center for creative leadership (2014) Cultural dimensions and culture clusters.
Available at: http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/assessments/globestudy.pdf
(Accessed: 19 April 2016).
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R. (2012) GLOBE:
A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership, Journal of
World Business, 47(4), pp. 504518. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004.
Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U. and Bautista, A. (1997)
Leadership in western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in
effective leadership processes across cultures, The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), pp.
233274. doi: 10.1016/s1048-9843(97)90003-5.
Foster, J. (2015) Hofstedes dimensions of Culture as a tool for global marketing.
Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hofstedes-dimensions-culture-toolglobal-marketing-jeffrey-foster (Accessed: 19 April 2016).
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000) Why should anyone be led by you, Harvard
Business Review, , pp. 6370.

Goleman, D. (1998) What makes a leader?, Harvard Business Review, .

Grove, C.N. and Llc, G. (2010) Leadership style variations across cultures: Overview
of GLOBE research findings, .
Gupt, P.D.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
study of 62 societies. Edited by Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, and Mansour
Javidan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2014) Malaysia - Geert Hofstede. Available at: https://geerthofstede.com/malaysia.html (Accessed: 20 April 2016).
Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W. and Silzer, R.F. (2006) Leadership competency
models, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 398413. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.003.
House, R.J. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis?, Journal of
Management, 23(3), pp. 409473. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A.S., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M. and
Dickson, M. (1999) Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project
Globe, in Advances in Global Leadership. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Ltd, pp. 171233.
Jogulu, U.D. (2010) Culturally-linked leadership styles, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 31(8), pp. 705719. doi: 10.1108/01437731011094766.
Jogulu, U.D. and Wood, G.J. (2008) A crosscultural study into peer evaluations of
womens leadership effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
29(7), pp. 600616. doi: 10.1108/01437730810906344.
Jogulu, U. and Ferkins, L. (2012) Asia Pacific business review leadership and culture
in Asia: The case of Malaysia, Asia pacific business review, 18(4), pp. 531549. doi:
10.1080/13602381.2012.690301.
Kim, E.A. (2004) Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions: Comparison of South Korea and
the United States, Lynchburg, VA: 3rd global conference on business & economics
proceedings,. .

King, P. and Wei, Z. (2014) Chinese and western leadership models: A literature
review, Journal of Management Research, 6(2), p. 1. doi: 10.5296/jmr.v6i2.4927.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004) The effect of organisational culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment, Journal of Management
Development, 23(4), pp. 321338. doi: 10.1108/02621710410529785.
Sharma, M.K. and Jain, S. (2013) Leadership Management: Principles, Models and
Theories, Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(3), pp. 309318.
Yap, T. (2016) Culture in the land down under: A Malaysian managers perspective,
Research & Corporate Affairs Projects, .
Zaleznik, A. (2004) Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?, Harvard Business
Review, .

Appendices

Appendix 1
Review of Leadership Theory (Bolden et al., 2003)
Leadership Theory
Trait Theories

Description
Different Traits were identified as important to leadership. With the
expansion on research in this area, the number of traits consisted
of a pool too large to make sense. Therefore the trait theory was
discouraged a simple identifier of what makes a good leader.

Behaviourist

Behavioral theory focus on what leaders do vs their traits. Different

Theory

styles of leadership was identified based on the behavior of a

leader. This theory grew to the theory of situational leadership.

Contingency Theory

This theory identifies that different types of leadership is required

based on the situation. For example, whilst some situations may
require an autocratic style, others may need a more participative
approach. It also proposes that there
may be differences in required leadership styles at different levels
in the same organisation

Transactional

Transactional leaders demonstrate two distinct forms

Theory

of behavior which are identified as contingent

reward and management by exception. Contingent
Reward focus is on making sure subordinates do the
right work on time. Rewards are given or withheld
based on task achievement. Management by
exception is when leaders intervene in the
responsibilities given to the subordinates to make

Transformational

sure the work is done right (Avolio and Bass 2004)

Transformational leaders exhibit nurturing behavior

Theory

towards the subordinated. They encourage the

followers to grow to their fullest capacity and give the
relevant support to ensure growth. They are leading
by inspiration (Avolio and Bass 2004)

Appendix 2
Hofesdes Dimensions of national culture as evaluated by Foster, (2015)

More
Egalitarian
Collectivist
Nature more
important
Comfortable
with
ambiguity
Put short
term goals
first

Appendix 3

Hofstedes Dimensions of Culture (100 point scale)

Power Distance
Individualism
Masculinity
Low

Uncertainty
avoidance
Long term
orientation

High

Embraces
Hierachy
Individualistic
Power more
Important
Ambiguity
creates
anxiety
Put long term
goals first

Global and primary CLT (culturally endorsed implicit leadership) dimensions.

Adapted from House et al., (2004)
Performance Team
Participative
Humane
Autonomous
Oriented
Oriented
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Anglo
SE Asian
Germanic
SE Asian
Germanic
Germanic
Confucian
Anglo
Anglo
East
Nordic
Latin
Nordic
African
European
SE Asian
American
Confucian
Confucian
Latin Europe East
Nordic
Latin
European
SE Asian
American
African
Anglo
Latin
African
European
Middle
Nordic
Eastern
Anglo
Latin
Middle
European
Eastern
Latin
Germanic
American
Confucian
Latin
Germanic
African
European
East Middle
East
Latin
Eastern
European
American
Latin
African
American
East
European
Middle
Eastern

Lower
Performance
Oriented

Lower
Team
Oriented

East
European
SE Asian
Confucian
Middle
Eastern
Lower
Participative

Latin
European
Nordic

Lower
Humane

Self or group
Protective
Higher
Middle
Eastern
Confucian
SE Asian
Latin
American
East
European

African
Latin
European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Lower
Autonomous

Lower
Self or group
Protective

Appendix 4
Cultural Clusters in GLOBE Study adapted from the model of Gupt and Gupta,
(2004)
Middl
e East

Confuci
an Asia

Southe
rn Asia

Latin
Americ
a

Nordic
Europ
e

Anglo

Germani
c Europe

Latin
Europe

Sub
Sahara
n
Africa

Eastern
Europe

Morocc
o
Turkey

Philippine
s
Indonesia

Guatemal
a
El
Salvador
Argentina

Denmar
k
Sweden

USA

Austria

Israel

Nigeria

Russia

Canada

Italy

Zambia

Poland

Finland

Australi
a
Ireland

Switzerlan
d-DE
Germany

Spain

Namibia

Georgia

Egypt

South
Korea
Hong
Kong
Singapor
e
Taiwan

Netherland
s

Portugal

Hungary

Qatar

China

India

Zimbabw
e
South
Africa

Japan

Iran

Kuwait

Malaysia
Thailand

Venezuel
a
Costa
Rica
Columbia

Ecuador

Mexica
Bolivia
Brazil

Englan
d
New
Zeelan
d
South
Africa
White

France
Switzerlan
d-FR

Albania
Slovenia

Kazakhsta
n