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
