c


   

 


  
  c


 
 
    


  ! !"  "
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


  |
| | |

U.S. and Germany employees show different values on Hofstede¶s (1993) cultural
dimension of long-term orientation, whereas the U.S. is in the lower third countries on
this dimension, Germany is in the middle third. This means that Germans tend to look
backward and are more oriented toward their tradition and history than are Americans.
German employees prefer structured over unstructured situations to a higher degree
than do U.S. employees. This may affect treatment of followers.Hofstede, van Deusen
,Mueller, Charles,and the Business Network(2002) found that German and U.S.
managers have different goals. In Germany responsibility toward employees seems to
play a more important role than it does in the U.S.Hunt(2002) reports that German
managers rate the necessity of competencies related to leadership and team building
such as ³coaching and developing others´ and ³providing individualized consideration
to subordinates´ significantly lower than do U.S. managers.

Graen, G.B., 2004.New Frontiers of Leadership.USA: Information Age Publishing

.Available from:|http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ljBaeY-
jmN0C&pg=PA159&dq=cultural+leadership+differences++between+US+and+Germ
any&hl=en&ei=jQ3PTNnZNOqT4gba54HcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&r
esnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed 01 November
2010).|


|  
| |||||||

Hofstede(2001) points out that although the American and the German culture are part
of the same of cultures, they show differences on three of his five cultural dimensions.
Germany has a higher Uncertainty Avoidance level as well as lower Power distance
and Individualism Gerstner/Day 1994).Taking a close look one can assume that its
harder to articulate compelling visions in short to be transformational, in German
organizations than an American ones. Reasons for this are firstly, that German has
stronger bureaucratic structures and strict regulations that limit the scope of leader
behaviour and avoid power accumulation. Secondly, role expectations, which are also
historically influenced, inhibit expressive and dominating behaviour as well as too
powerful and outstanding ³heroes ³in leadership positions (e.p.lower Power Distance
in Germany) consequently sticking to the rules as well as fair and cooperative
relationships are highly valued and more expected in German organizations.
Therefore, room for visions and charisma might not be given. Hence, a higher level of
transactional leadership is expected in Germany.
Accordingly Kukhinke(1999) points out that because of Germany¶s historical
background, affective identification with the leader cannot be expected. As the
structure of the leader¶s field of responsibility and his limits are more well-defined,
Kukhinke also expects transactional leadership to be predominant in Germany. Yet,
Kukhinke found differences for only two of the transformational scales. Charisma(II)
and IM have higher means in the American sample.The transactional behaviours did
not differ significantly. However, the cultural dimensions , according to Hofstede,
only account for a small part of the variance in the transformational scales.Taking a
closer look at the German data(Felfe 2003), it can be shown that whereas the average
American leader profile form a curve, the rating for the German leaders are on
approximately the same level for all facets of leadership.The variation of the German
means show a significant lower range.(Figure)Only the means for the passive
leadership behaviours drop in comparison to the other scales.Furthermore, as
expected, the means for the transformational scales and CR show higher values in the
American sample than in the German one, while the German leaders get higher
ratings for MbEa, MbEp, and LF.MbEa shows a significantly higher mean in the
German sample.It amounts to the same level as the transformational leadership
behaviours.Contrary to this, in the USA there is a significant decrease of MbEa when
compared to the transformational scales and CR.Compared to the optimum leadership
profile proposed by Avolio and Bass(1994), it becomes obvious that the American
profile resembles the gradient of the optimum leader more than the German one.

A comparison of the correlations reveals similar patterns in the American and German
data.Apart from MbEa , the correlations barely show any difference in height or
direction.In the American sample, MbEa has negative correlations with the
transformational scales and positive ones with the with the transactional scales and LF
.In the German data, however, a reverse pattern emerges.Positive correlations appear
with the transformational scales and CR, whereas correlation with MbEp and LF is a
negative one.These results also emphasize the different roles played by active
correcting behaviour in Germany.Correlations with outcome variables as measured in
the MLQ were not lower in the German sample than in the USA.Thus a higher
influence of transformational leadership in America cannot be assumed.

All in all, as expected , there are differences between German and American
leadership.Apart from the aforementioned reasons, further causes can be imagined.A
general bias might exist between German and American employees when expressing
satisfaction with their leaders.Perhalps American employees are more prone to
support their leaders by positive or even enthusiastic feedback, whereas Germans are
more used to balanced or even critical feedback.In support of this assumption, the
differences between self- and other ratings are much lower in the American sample
than in German data. Whereas German and American self-ratings are on a similar
level, the German other-ratings are on a lower level(Felfe 2003;Kroeger/Tartler
2002)If the assumption of culturally based feedback bias was true, the differences
found would be due to unequal rating practices instead of differences in actual
behaviour.However this issue needs further examination.In order to clarify this issue,
studies are required where German employees rate American leaders and vice versa or
where trained raters examine leaders in both cultures.All in all, the results confirm
the assumption that the transformational paradigm transcends national
boundaries.(Bass 1997) Patterns of correlations an means are relatively similar.The
relevance of transformational leadership is not only an American phenomenon.Thus
the transfer of the transformational concept to German seems justified.However
results indicate specific culturally based differences with regard to leadership
behaviour between American and German organizations.

Weibler, J., 2004.German Journal of Human Resource Research. Cultural

Context:Differences between American and German Samples,18(3),272.Available
from:|
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ey8NWDOHQjoC&pg=PA273&dq=comparison
+of+leadership+US-
+Germany&hl=en&ei=PCbPTMTIEpGZ4AaElqXdDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=r
esult&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 01
November 2010].

u
# $

%&

u| ë
|||
|



||


|

|

  |
u| u||
|
||| 
|
|


|


|

| 
||



|
 | ||
||
  |||


|
|


     ! 


 
|
u| r ||

|
|

|| |

 |

|


||"

|


 |||
|
 |

|
| |
|
 u
# 

%& '

'
(

c
)
c # *+%
ð|
à| The leaders are admired, respected and trusted
à| Followers identify with the leaders and want to
emulate them
à| Leaders are willing to take risks and consistent rather
than arbitrary

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

à| Transformational leaders behave in ways that

motivate and inspire those around them by providing
meaning and challenge to their followers¶ work
à| Team spirit is aroused
à| Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed
à| Leaders get followers involved in envisioning
attractive future states; they create clearly
communicated expectations that followers want to
meet and also demonstrate co mmitment to goals and
the shaved vision.


|
|

à| u 


| |

|
|

 ß

|

|
|

|
||#

| 

 |
|
 ||
|
| 


 |||
 |
à| º

| |
|
à| u| |
||
 |
|| $|
% |
à| è| ||
|
|


 ||

|
|


 |
||||
|
 |
| |

 |||


 |
à| [

 ||
|

|
||
 ||
|
 ||

|
| |
||
|
| $|
 |
|

| |
à| u 


| || |



|

||
|

$ | |
|
||


||
| ||
|
|

|
 à| [

 ||
 ||
|

|  |
| |
|


|
à| c|
 

| |
|||
|



 ||
|
|
||


|
|
à| c| ||
 |
| ||  |
|
|
à| u|$ |
|


 |
|
|
| |
à| c


 |
|

 ||
|
|
|
 
||
 |
|
à| u||
 |
 %| || |
|
|


 |&
|
 % ||


|

| ||


 ||

|

|
| 

||

|
  |
 '||

 |
|

||
||
|%|
|

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Pk6x
pJ73C6sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=leadership&ots=5A
1_6eOZQU&sig=mnAqFFxFKvcOgBRM9xyS1RtCz
zU#v=onepage&q&f=false )|

u||

u| It is based on legitimate authority within the bureaucratic structure of the organisation

and a relationship of common dependence and an exchange process of µI¶ll give you
this, if you do that¶.(Mullins) |
u| Transactional leaders are those who lead through social exchange.|u|
||
 |
|


|
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Pk6xpJ73C6sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&
dq=leadership&ots=5A1_6eOZQU&sig=mnAqFFxFKvcOgBRM9xyS1RtCzzU#v=o
nepage&q&f=false )|
|
|
|