#3 Culture and Leadership

By Steve Hale and Sam Young

Nearly all people have untouched leadership potential, just as most people have unused athletic potential.  There are clear differences due to nature and nurture, that is, genes and development, as to how much untapped potential there may be.  No matter what level of athletic or leadership performance a person currently exhibits, he or she can make significant advances.  Not everyone can be the CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation, but the point is that there is leadership in virtually everyone (Tichy, 2002, p. 8).

Smolin stated in Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (2001) we absorb more knowledge all the time and continuously revise what we think knowledge is and what its related conventions recommend.  In Smolin's expressiveness, the world is nothing but an evolving network of relationships (p. 19 and 20).  People and cultures are never static.  Individuals make judgments and judgments made are based in part on the social customs which have evolved through time.  Judgments impact the evolution of future leadership models.

As an example, Mr. Chan was born and raised in China.  After successfully retiring in the United States, Mr. Chan wanted give back to society.  He offered to pay for the construction of a new auditorium at an elementary school.  School officials enthusiastically accepted Mr. Chan’s offer.  School officials subsequently met and determined the needs of the school had changed; to accommodate growth, the board decided they needed to construct more classrooms.  Dr. Smith, the principal of the school, went to the Mr. Chan to ask for permission to reallocate the funds to build classrooms.  Mr. Chan responded by saying: "You can do as you wish but I would really like to see the auditorium raised."  Happily, Dr. Smith went back to the board and reported that they had permission to reallocate the funds.  An Asian teacher sitting in the audience explained how Mr. Chan really wanted his money to go to the auditorium, but out of politeness and following cultural tradition Mr. Chan gave Dr. Smith "permission" to without really conveying permission.  In the Chinese culture, it is impolite to modify the nature or use of a gift.  With little understanding of Mr. Chan’s culture, the school nearly lost a valued relationship.

Hofstede and Minkov (2010) are social scientists that identified six cultural factors that distinguish cultural behavior.  Two predominate indices developed by Hofstede are the Uncertainty Avoidance Index and the Power Distance Index.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

Social scientists discovered that in some Asian and South American cultures the use of mitigating speech is predominate in contrast to European and North American cultures which are direct or less circumspect in the use of speech.  For instance, language use in the Chinese culture is mitigating and the listener is expected to “read between the lines” to gain the proper meaning without the speaker having to be explicit.  By following the meaning of the action rather than the words, one may make proper connection and induce a correct inference.  The underlying notion in some Asian cultures is to avoid direct confrontation, thereby reducing the chance of offending the speaker’s sensibilities, or feelings; the speaker expects the listener to respond with polite gratitude.

Power Distance Index (PDI)

The Uncertainty Avoidance Index is an important idea, but the notion of the Power Distance Index is also important.  Hofstede noticed that different cultures viewed the idea of the use of power differently, especially between supervisors and subordinates.  Hofstede conducted a study examining communication between supervisor and subordinates based on cultural orientation.  Hofstede constructed the notion of the Power Distance Index (PDI) to explain the phenomena.  The study measured the extent that less powerful members or organizational members accepted or expected power to be distributed.  In Low PDI cultures, Austria and New Zealand for example, the view and accept power relationships as consultative and democratic.  In higher PDI cultures, such as the UAE or Malaysia the view of power relationships is less consultative and not distributed.  The graph illustrates the PDI of different cultures.

Mitigated Speech vs. Direct Speech

Gladwell (2008) introduced six levels of mitigated versus direct speech and illustrated examples of practical differences.  One such example illustrating communicative patterns are suggested in the following dialog in the context of pilot and co-pilot:

1.                  Command: "Turn thirty degrees right."  This an example of an explicit, direct, and to the point form of communication.  There is virtually no chance of misunderstanding but feelings of the receiver is not considered.

2.                  Obligate Statement: "I think we need to deviate right about now.”  Instead of giving direct unambiguous instructions, the speaker uses the word "we" and makes a less specific request in terms of time.

3.                  Suggestion: "Let's fly around the weather.”  This is less direct than the obligate statement.  The speaker merely tries to help the receiver come to the same conclusion with a suggestion to fly an alternate route.

4.                  Query: "Which direction would you like to deviate?”  This statement attempts to get the listener to think that a change in direction would be wise; it relinquishes a level of authority by asking a question instead of making a statement.

5.                  Preference: "I think it would be wise to turn left or right."  Similar to the query but suggests a more powerful or purposeful decision should be made.

6.                  Hint: "The weather at twenty-five miles on your course looks mean."  This statement is the most mitigate style of speech.  The speaker makes a statement pointing the receiver to a potential problem.  It is up to the listener to deduce what they should do.

Conclusion

Two individuals may speak the same language but cultural differences, use of language, regional or national customs can interfere or impair the listeners in drawing the intended conclusion.  I had to adjust my speech patterns when I started working as a CIO in Texas with staff that was 75% Hispanic.  Without taking their culture into consideration, I made comments such as: "What do you think if we were to do ..." Because their high UAI and high PDI, they assumed I was giving them a direct order when I was trying to solicit an opinion.  On the other hand, when I worked with an 85% white staff in California, they thought my direct orders were consultative.  Failing to discover a complete understanding in the process of dialogue or conducting business in the international market may be catastrophic for leaders.  Communication and cultural awareness requires attention to detail when culture and people intersect.  

References:

Covey, S. (1990). The habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outlier, The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown, and Company

Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Service, B. & Arnott, D. (2006). The leadership quotient: 12 dimensions for measuring and improving leadership.  New York: iUniverse.

Service, R. W. (2012). Leadership and innovation across cultures: The CIQ-contextual intelligence quotient. Southern Business Review, 37(1), 19-50. Retrieved from http://coba.georgiasouthern.edu/pub/southern-business-review/

Service, R. W. & White, D. (2011). Leadership effectiveness for the rest- of- us. Accepted for Presentation and Proceeding Publication at the Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines in Memphis, TN.

Smolin, L. (2001). Three roads to quantum gravity. New York. Basic Books

Tichy, N. M. (2002). The leadership engine. New York: Harper Collins

#2: Strengths Oriented Leadership

By Steve Hale and Sam Young

One of the most insidious behaviors a leader can impel on their followers is to treat them as a group in the name of fairness.  The notion of group fairness has become associated with a diverse variety of institutions, such as, governments, unions, schools, and large corporations.  One of the core tenants of non-diversity as practiced in the institutions mentioned is that to treat people fairly we must treat everyone the same.

Consider that one who leads in a global setting across several cultures, with few common references, how to begin.  In order to lead effectively in a diverse environment one must know self in terms of strengths and then be able to assess the strengths of followers (Rath, 2007).  Understanding the dynamics of a leadership coupled with follower’s strengths one may formulate an effective strategy, in part, to lead.  As the world shrinks in terms of labor talent necessitating cross-cultural inclusion the development of one’s Global Leadership Quotient becomes significant (Service & Loudon, 2012).

One of the essential skills a leader should master is the ability to assess the strengths of their followers as individuals and communicate in a fashion that resonates with those strengths.  For example, an experience involving a subordinate failing to follow direction was puzzling.  Working as a senior programmer-analyst, the initial phase of the assignment was complete.  The next phase of the project, delayed due to company's reprioritization, gave way to reassigning the senior programmer-analyst to a new project.  The problem was the person kept returning to the old project to make minor changes, the new project languished.

A junior executive frustrated, wrote, an e-mail expressing his displeasure but before sending the message, decided to ask for input seeking an alternate approach.  After consultation, the question arose as to what are the five most dominant strengths of the individual (Rath 2007).  It turned out two of the primary strengths included "responsibility" and "focus."  They concluded the she had a high level of responsibility and wanted to remain focused on developing the old project to the maximum utility possible.  Instead of sending the original email, they rewrote it and indicated their reassignment was critical to the overall success of the department.  The new email stated that her "responsibility" for the old project had ended and she has now been given this new “responsibility” that she needed “focused” on.  The individual later communicated an apology, stating they did not understand exactly what the request was, until faming the direction in specific language that she identified with.

Treat every person as individuals, recognize every person has their own fears, wants, needs, and desires.  To treat everyone the same is to treat everyone as a number measured against a theoretical model.  Literature is replete with accounts of leaders who have improved their own successful intelligence by identifying shortcomings in themselves and those they sought to lead.  George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Condoleezza Rice, Mother Teresa, Teddy Roosevelt, and Jesus are historical exemplars of formally educated and uneducated leaders who improved and applied their intelligence in ways that led to successful leadership outcomes.

The leaders identified above, identified each person's or the group need, and addressed them individually.  A strong leader will meet individual needs and desires through a situational style demonstrated in the leader's actions.  The real essence of being a compassionate leader and exercising strong leadership is to permit each individual, within bounds, to help followers to grow and perform their best work by leveraging and building upon natural talent.

References

Rath, T. (2007).  Strengths Finder 2.0.  Gallup Press, New York.

Service, R. W., & Loudon, D.(2012).  A global leadership quotient-GLQ: Measuring, assessing, and developing.   China - USA Business Review, 11(8) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466546805

#1: Trust

By Steve Hale and Sam Young

The study of certain leadership traits continue as objects of extensive study.  Organizations spend vast amounts of time and money to develop or expand leadership traits for selected individuals.  In spite, of the resources committed to study leaders and leadership the fluidity in economics, business, and the closing of cultural gaps demand further analysis.  Today, identifying leaders in terms authenticity, relationship building, and emotional intelligence is more than just another fanciful trend or the latest craze in creating leaders.  The business world has evolved into a virtual environment requiring leaders who understand what it means to authenticate, relationship oriented and possessing the personality, true for both leaders and followers that depend on a high degree of emotional intelligence.

A virtual workforce is becoming a reality.  Many factors pushing this phenomena such the cost of labor, availability of technical expertise in a worldwide market and improved network and security infrastructure outside of North America sharing knowledge between physically diverse teams is increasing in importance, has certainly complicate the role of a leader.  It is not completely clear how the relationship between knowledge sharing and interpersonal trust should work, without a worker losing their uniqueness and value to an organization.  The challenge of creating a diverse workforce where sharing is open and petty bickering is minimize is still an area of continuing research in leadership, particular across multiple cultures.

Leadership is a relatively simple concept with several constituent parts.  Leadership has static and simple components and dynamic and complex interactions.  In essence, leadership is the ability of the leader to accomplish a vision or set objectives through the efforts and activities of followers.  Fundamental to leadership in all but the most trivial forms is the creation of a trust relationship.

We have identified fifty characteristics of a sustainable leader.  In subsequent postings, we will discuss each of these traits in detail.

Sustainable Leadership Characteristics #1: Trust

Without trust, the myriad of leadership traits often will fall short in motivating others to work toward a common vision or goal.  Patrick Lencioni, in his best seller Five Dysfunctions of a Team, places trust as the foundation of all successful teams.  Trust building usually occurs one of two ways.  Trust forms through controlling people through real or imagined fear or by developing a relationship based on competence and mutual respect between leaders and followers.

Inducing trust through real or imagined fear:

Understanding real or imagined fear culture becomes an important factor in the success of this tactic; fear is a tactical rather than strategic.  In dictatorial organizations, real fear arises through control mechanisms such as the threat of the loss of property, life, or position.  An example of imagined fear may arise as a matter of culture or politics.  In the instance of a virtual or knowledge worker who fears their individual contribution may not be recognized, worries that credit is shifted to the team, fear in the loss of identification of individual achievement, accomplishment, or uniqueness goes to the core of an individual’s sense of worth.  The perceived loss is primarily cultural, as exemplified by the differences between Asian team values versus North American and European values.  In non-Asian team’s, loss of individualism becomes the main concern, not necessarily the accomplishment of the leader’s vision. 

Trust based on competence and mutual respect:

There are leaders where placing blind faith them as leaders based on their position in the organization, or based upon personal charisma, or intelligence can be a fatal mistake for followers.  If leaders can gain the trust of the followers then team members will be reluctant to share opinions, they will fear evaluations, in short they will fear and remain suspicious of leadership.  So the principle question becomes how one instills trust in their followers.

Building Trust:

1. We willing to accept blame for team failures.  As the leader, you are responsible for the outcome; so do not shift blame to your followers.
2. Each person or knowledge worker has unique value, find it.  As the leader, it is your job to identify the value or strengths in every team member.  Use that strength(s) for the benefit of the team.
3. Always work to build up each member of the team and do not criticize in front of peers or superiors.  Always acknowledge each person’s effort and never take credit for something that the team accomplished.
4. As the leader if you fail, admit it to your team if you hide the failure so will the team members.
5. Build a culture where there is allowance for failure, and encourage each team member to experiment with ideas they developed and bring the idea forward.  If a leader values innovation, they must also be prepared for some failure.  Failing to unleash the creative force of your followers will leave the team weak and shallow to your competition.
6. When there is disagreement the leader should development, an environment where constructive debate is encouraged false agreement is destructive in the long term.  If you are in a position where your team rarely disagrees, it is likely they are afraid of discussing the “truth”, which is ultimately fatal to leadership.
7. Always do what you say, when you say you are going to do it.  If the commitment turns out to be impossible to accomplish communicate to those affected do not feign your followers misunderstood what you committed to. Be honest and committed to your commitments made to the team.