A cross-cultural comparison of leader ethics.

Rhodes, Danny L. ; Emery, Charles R. ; Tian, Robert G. 等

ABSTRACT

The answer to what makes an effective leader has long been the "holy grail" of business research. By and large, theorists have abandoned trait and behavior approaches in favor of situational leadership theories. Popular press gurus, however, continue to focus on a "leader ethic" (traits and behavior) as the foundation to effective leadership. Further, gurus such as Bass (transformational leadership), Goleman (emotional intelligence) and Covey (seven habits) believe that this fundamental ethic is universal to mankind. As such, this research uses Stephen Covey's seven habits of effectiveness and the characteristics of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership to explore how leaders from various cultures (e.g., U.S., Russia, Germany, and China) rank the popular traits and behaviors that make up a "leader ethic." The rankings are compared across gender, age groups, supervisory levels, and professions. Cultural differences of opinion are examined in terms of Hofstede's cultural dimensions (e.g., uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, individualism, power distance and time) for possible insights to variances in "leader ethic." The findings endorse the universality of Covey's "Seven Habits" and have clear implication for understanding and training cross-cultural leadership.

INTRODUCTION

The answer to what makes an effective leader has long been the "holy grail" of business researchers. Part of the problem is that the term "leadership" means different things to different people. Most, however, agree that leadership involves influencing followers to accomplish organizational goals. Originally, this influencing power was thought to spring from the leader's extraordinary abilities such as tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight and irresistible persuasive skill. Eventually this thought was abandoned because empirical researchers noted that the possession of these traits did not necessarily guarantee the successful accomplishment of organizational goals. Subsequently, researchers began to believe that it was the leader's behavior that made all the difference (e.g., focus on task, focus on employees or some combination thereof). Now, however, theorists believe that effectiveness is dependent upon providing the right leadership style for a given situation. In other words, the situational factors (e.g., leader's authority, subordinates' capabilities, task, etc.) determine what kinds of leader traits, skills, and behaviors are relevant. As such, theorists believe that the education of leaders should focus on analyzing the situation and taking proper action.

The popular press gurus, however, suggest a slightly different focus on leadership training, i.e. they believe that leadership should be built from the inside-out. In other words, focus on building a "leadership ethic" that contains certain traits and behaviors as prerequisites to effective leadership. Given this foundation, leaders will have the power to influence the workers to accomplish organizational goals. For example, Goleman (2002) suggests that leaders must possess a high emotional intelligence (the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively) to be successful. Similarly, Covey (1989) believes there are fundamental principles that govern human effectiveness and that these principles start with achieving independence and proceed to mastering interdependence. Bass (1985) posits that a leader's power to influence comes from within, i.e. charisma. Each of these three gurus believes that a "leadership ethic" is universal to mankind. Unfortunately, there has been little research in the U.S. on these popular notions and no research across cultures on these characteristics. This research explores how leaders from various cultures (e.g., U.S., Russia, Germany, and China) rank several of the popular traits and behaviors that make up the "leader ethic." The rankings are compared across gender, age groups, supervisory levels, and professions. Cultural differences of opinion are examined in terms of Hofstede's (1991) cultural dimensions for possible insights to variances in "leader ethic."

U.S. LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

A recent database search produced over 2,400 articles (1,197 from peer-reviewed journals) about leadership written within the past ten years. A similar search of holdings in a research university produced 350 volumes concerning leadership written within the same timeframe. Suffice it to say, a thriving interest in leadership exists yet there seems to be no "holy grail". Theories of leadership abound, as do concepts of what leads to leadership effectiveness.

Yukl (2002) has identified key variables included in leadership theories. In order to understand the various approaches, he suggests that one consider the type of variable that is emphasized the most. He has organized the variables into three categories: those of the leader, those of the follower, and those of the situation. He asserts that most theories developed over the past half century have emphasized leader characteristics and that the theories can be classified into five approaches: 1) trait, 2) behavior, 3) power-influence, 4) situational, and 5) integrative. Nahavandi (2003) agrees that most researchers have oriented on leadership characteristics. He, however, suggests three general eras or approaches: the trait era, the behavior era, and the contingency era.

Early studies of leadership centered on the belief that leaders were born and not made. It was assumed that some were born with certain qualities that endowed them with the ability to lead others successfully. Yukl (2002) notes a focus on such attributes as personality, motives, values, and skills and such qualities as tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight, and irresistible persuasive power. In spite of the many studies in the early 20th century, researchers were unable to identify any specific set of traits that led to effective leadership.

World War II created an increased need for leaders. The inability to identify particular traits that would produce effective leaders caused researches to focus on leader behavior and, more specifically, leadership styles (Nahavandi, 2003; Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). Contrary to the trait approach, it was widely held that leaders could be taught particular behaviors or styles which, if applied properly, could lead to an effective influence over others.

In a number of studies conducted at Ohio State University in the 1950's researchers identified patterns of behavior, or leadership styles. The many, varied styles pointed to two primary dimensions of leadership behavior: consideration (creating mutual respect and trust with followers) and initiating structure (organizing and defining what group members should be doing) (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). Related studies at the University of Michigan identified two different styles of leadership: employee centered and job centered. Subsequent research by Blake and Mouton (1982) also suggested two predominate styles of leader behavior: concern for people and concern for production.

A synthesis of these studies would indicate that most leadership behaviors/styles fall into one of two orientations: people or task. Although leaders have a predominant style, most will use a combination of these orientations depending on such situational factors as the characteristics of the followers, the nature of the work, the type of organization, and the nature of the external environment (Yukl, 2002). The leader's response to these situational factors, along with his/her application of power, will determine the amount of influence the leader will have over the followers--in short, the leader's effectiveness. Using Fiedler's Contingency Model of leadership as rationale, Nahavandi (2003) asserts that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between the leader's style and the situation. "If the leader's style matches the situation, the leader will be effective; if the leader's style does not match the situation, the leader will not be effective" (p. 126).

Contrary to situational theories, several leadership gurus continue to preach that the secret of effective leadership is inside our character and behavior. For example, Daniel Goleman's (2002) construct of emotional intelligence has recently captured the imagination of business leaders and prompted a firestorm of criticism from the theorists. He suggests that the basic task of leaders is to create good feelings in those they lead in order to obtain commitment. Leaders with high emotional intelligence are able to do this because they have significant capabilities in two areas of personal competence and two areas of social competence. Gardner (1983) identified these two competencies as intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences respectively, so the concepts are hardly new. The personal competences areas include self-awareness and self-management. These competencies are further refined into the following nine categories: emotional self-control, transparency, adaptability, achievement, initiative, and optimism. The social competence areas are social awareness and relationship management, including the following: empathy, organizational awareness, service, inspirational leadership, influence, developing others, being a change catalyst, conflict management, building bonds, and teamwork and collaboration.

Similarly, Stephen Covey (1989) believes in a character-based, "inside-out" approach to personal and interpersonal effectiveness. Inside-out is a continuing process of human growth and renewal based on several fundamental and universal principles. Mastering these principles generates an upward spiral of influence that progressively leads to higher forms of responsible independence and effective interdependence. Specifically, his first three habits (i.e., personal vision, personal leadership, and time management) move a person from dependence to independence. His second three habits (i.e., conflict resolution, empathic communication, and creative cooperation) transition one from independence to interdependence. His seventh habit of continuing to "sharpen the saw" makes all the others possible. "It's preserving and enhancing the greatest asset you have--you" (Covey, 1989).

The recent resurgence in popularity of transformational or charismatic leadership seems to suggest a renewal in the beliefs of a leader's mystical qualities. Transformational leaders are those who achieve success by being magnetic, charming, and visionary. Charisma and intellectual stimulation are its essential ingredients (Bass, 1985). Charisma is a talent, a gift--even a supernatural gift. It is part of the soul or character, radiating from within. Covey (1989) and Goleman (1998) concur that effective leadership is "inside-out." Transformational leaders possess a high degree of self-confidence and convictions in their own beliefs. They are able to relate the work and mission of the group to values, ideals, and aspirations shared among followers. They are able to inspire enthusiasm and growth by communicating confidence in each employee while increasing expectations. In short, they influence subordinates through referent power (House, 1977).

CROSS-CULTURAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Many researchers believe that effective leadership starts with the character and values of the leader. Some suggest that leadership behavior is strongly influenced by national culture. In one of the first major studies, Haire, et al. (1963) chronicle cultural patterns in the roles of managers. They identified several managerial values that were relatively culture-free as well as several that were cultural specific. England and Lee (1974) found that managers across several cultures were rather similar in terms of the personal values that were related to success. Bass, Burger, et al. (1979) analyzed the choices of managers from twelve country groups in their selection, from a list of twenty-five of the most important traits and the five least important traits required for top, middle, and lower management. Hofstede's (1980) landmark study regarding the relationship between national culture and work-related values helped establish the belief among many that leadership is a culture bound phenomenon. This notion of divergence (national culture drives values which influence a person's leadership style) was reinforced in his subsequent work (1999) concerning 21st century global management. Ogbor (2000) and Judge (2001) cite the work of several researchers that implies that leadership character is culture bound. The results of his own study of Taiwanese and American CEO's caused Judge to agree with Hofstede that theories of management and leadership need to be adapted to national cultural value systems.

Likewise, with Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) House, et al., (2002) expect to show the impact and effectiveness of specific cultural variables on leadership and organizational processes. The researchers studied 61 countries and grouped them into 10 clusters. Using the European sub-sample of GLOBE (22 countries from western, eastern, northern and southern and central Europe), Broadbeck, et al., (2000) found that leadership concepts are culturally endorsed. The researchers also found that countries within the same region of the sample (Anglo, Latin, etc.) were more likely to have compatible leadership concepts.

Others suggest that the globalization of culture requires (and may very well be producing) a coalescing of leadership styles (convergence). Research by Nikandrou, Apospori, and Papalexandris (2003) supports the latter finding of Broadbeck, et al. Their study was based on five countries from GLOBE's Southern European sub-sample. The researchers found that these countries, which have common origins of civilization and religion, are culturally convergent, meaning there is no significant pattern of differences of leadership concepts. Expanding beyond one region, Pillali, Scandura, and Williams (1999) found that there are more commonalities than differences in the leadership processes of different cultures. However, there is a gap between the effectiveness of management techniques between developed and developing countries, due primarily to differences in cultural values.

A comparative analysis of the United States and Russia by Puffer (1994) found this to be true. Puffer found, however, that approaches to leadership in Russia are shifting as Russians move further away from the "Red Executive" of the communist regime (divergence) and toward the market-oriented manager (convergence) after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Rhodes and Emery (2003) found a similar shift in Russian culture. Axerlrod (1997) suggests that the more people interact, the more similar they become. The advance of globalization would suggest a concomitant increase in convergence. Axerlrod, however, implies that the tendency to converge stops before it becomes complete because some individual and group differences are durable. In effect, there will always be some remnants of national culture.

Ogbor (2000) acknowledges the proponents of divergence and convergence. He also reports a third explanation of the behavior of cross-cultural management and organizational practices--crossvergence. Citing the work of Ralston, et al., Ogbor explains that the concept proposes an integration of values--a system that is in between national culture (divergence) and economic ideology (convergence). He asserts, however, that there are many unanswered questions about this concept.

The majority of contemporary research on leadership has been conducted in North America and Western Europe. (Yukl, 2002; Nahavandi, 2003; and Pierce and Newstrom, 2003). Although there has been a recent increase in interest in cross-cultural leadership, most scholars agree that more research is needed, particularly in non-western cultures. Increasing globalization is creating a concomitant increase in the diversity of the workplace: demographic, cultural, organizational, technological and competitive. The challenges facing managers in the 21st century are unlike those of the past (Drucker, 1999; McKenna, 1991; Su, Zhang, and Hulpke, 1998). They face a new set of paradigms. Black (1992) suggests that traditional [western] management techniques of the 20th century may not be appropriate for success in the years to come. Broadbeck, et al. (2000), Collison and Cohen (2002), Javidian and House (2002), Judge (2001), Nikandrou, et al. (2003), Ogbor (2000), Pillali, et al. (1999), and others agree that the current environment necessitates a better understanding of culture and its influence on leadership, management, and organizational practices.

METHOD

A common approach to studying leadership is to use "critical incident" comparisons. Incidents of effective behavior are interpreted and grouped into broad behavior/trait categories. In turn, leaders rank these categories in term of relevance. This study uses the combined traits and behaviors of Covey (1989), Goleman, et al. (2002), and Bass (1985) to create "critical incident" categories or a "leader ethic." Specifically, the seven habits of effective people (i.e., time management, empathic communication, creative cooperation, self-renewal, personal leadership, proactive behavior/personal vision, and conflict resolution) were believed to accurately represent the "inside" and "outside" facets of emotional intelligence suggested by Goleman, et al. (2002). Further, the traits and behaviors of intellectual stimulation and charisma were added to represent the two distinctly different characteristics of transformational leadership suggested by Bass (1985). As such, the following nine factors and "critical incident" definitions were used as the basis of this study. The ordering of these characteristics was selected at random and administered in three different orderings within each country.

1. Put First Things First--Time Management. Emphasize daily planning and the ability to develop priorities and to delegate appropriate tasks. Focus on activities that support your values and personal mission. Understand what is urgent and important in your life. Balance today's production with long-term development.

2. Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood---Empathic Communication. Focus on listening carefully to others to understand their frame of reference and appreciate their perceptions before the presentation of one's own ideas.

3. Synergize--Creative Cooperation. Find a better solution together--recognize the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Focus on encouraging and managing diverse ideas to create growth.

4. Sharpen the Saw--Self-Renewal. Emphasize the continuous and balanced investment of time to maintaining or improving one's physical, social, spiritual and mental health. This attribute suggests the importance of continuous personal growth on effective leadership.

5. Begin with the End in Mind--Personal Leadership. Possess a clear understanding of your desired destinations and the development of strategies to accomplish personal objectives. Ensure that actions are in line with objectives.

6. Be Proactive--Personal Vision. Take responsibility of your own life. Develop a keen sense of awareness and the initiative to influence outcomes. Choose behaviors that match your value system.

7. Stimulate to Motivate--Intellectual Growth of Employees. Focus on helping followers rethink rational ways to examine a situation. Encourage employees to expand their capabilities, paradigms and creativity through intellectual stimulation.

8. Create Win/Win Solutions--Conflict Resolution. Seek and create mutually beneficial solutions to conflicts between individuals or groups. Understand that too much conflict causes organizational turbulence.

9. Be Charismatic--Employee Commitment. Create employee motivation through their emotional commitment to your values, beliefs and vision. This attribute involves a combination of charm and personal magnetism that contribute to the ability to create change and to get people to passionately endorse your ideas.

Current maps of Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions (Emery & Tian, 2002; Rhodes & Emery, 2003; Hofstede, 1991) were used to select four diverse cultures (e.g., U.S., Central Russia, Eastern China, and Germany) to explore how a country's leadership prioritizes the universal factors suggested by popular U.S. leadership theories. The nine leadership characteristics (see above) were translated into the various languages and dialects of the participating country researchers and placed on a one page, two-sided questionnaire. Further, the forms were back-translated by other researchers from the foreign languages to English to ensure the appropriate intent; modifications were made as appropriate. The respondents were asked to select the "top three" characteristics that they thought were most important in career advancement. Knowing what it takes for career success in different countries provides a way of understanding what is valued in different countries. Additionally, the respondents were asked to state why they made these selections along with some demographic data (e.g., age, gender, years of experience, supervisory level, profession, and education specialty). The question of why they selected a particular choice was meant to provide a check against the translation and the respondents' perceptions of the task. Also, the respondents were asked to add any other leader characteristics or attributes that they thought were more important than the three that they had indicated on the questionnaire. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were randomly handed out or emailed by each country researcher across demographic categories and to 10 businesses (five manufacturing and five non-manufacturing) between September and November 2003. The sample of each national group of managers was meant to reflect a cross-section of professions, age, experience, supervisory levels, and gender.

RESULTS

The prioritization of leadership characteristics and cultural comparisons are summarized in Table 1. Russia had four characteristics (Personal Leadership, Time Management, Creative Cooperation, and Personal Vision) that were selected in the "top three" more than 40 percent of the time. The United States had four characteristics (Time Management, Empathic Communication, Personal Leadership, and Charisma) that were selected to the "top three" more than 40 percent of the time. China had three characteristics (Charisma, Self-Renewal, and Time Management) selected to the "top three" more than 40 percent of the time. Germany had three characteristics (Personal Vision, Personal Leadership, and Intellectual Stimulation) selected to the "top three" more than 40 percent of the time.

In general, there was a certain degree of uniformity across cultures in the characteristics leaders thought were the most important prerequisites to success. Two of the characteristics, Time Management and Personal Leadership, were selected in the "top three" by three out of the four nations. Another two characteristics, Charisma and Personal Vision, were selected in the "top three" by two of the four nations. Interestingly, four characteristics (Empathetic Communication, Creative Cooperation, Self-Renewal and Intellectual Stimulation) were only selected in the "top three" by one culture and one characteristic (Conflict Resolution) was not selected in the "top three" by any of the cultures.

An examination of demographic differences (i.e., age, gender, years of experience, supervisory level, etc.) within each country indicated almost no significant variation of characteristic choices. The only differences were between supervisory levels in Germany (p<.067) and between experience levels in the United States (p<.062). This suggests a uniformity of beliefs across the demographics within each country's leadership. Further, this implies that (1) the variations between countries are predominately culture based, and (2) a consistent paradigm for successful leadership exists within each country.

It should be noted that the percentages of usable returns for the four countries were as follows: the United States (52%), Germany (40%), Russia (35%), and China (67%). While each national sample of managers represents a relatively diverse group in terms of the demographic variables, several of the variable subgroups had to be combined in order to test for significant differences. For example, the four age categories were combined into two, the number of professions were reduced from six to two (manufacturing and non-manufacturing), the years of experience was reduced from five to two.

DISCUSSION

This study examined how managers from various cultures rank behavioral attributes that contribute to a leader ethic. We expected to find some universal leadership priorities and did. Managers in three out of four countries stressed personal leadership (setting goals), and time management (setting priorities) in their "top three." Additionally, 'Personal Vision' was a close fourth among the most important characteristics across all four cultures. The fact that all three of these factors come from within the leaders seems to give a universal endorsement to the prescriptions of Covey (1989), Goleman (1998), and Bass (1985), i.e. learn to manage oneself before managing others. On the other hand, national boundaries did make a profound difference in the managers' recommendations for the use of empathic communication, self-renewal, creative cooperation and stimulating intellectual growth. On average, conflict resolution was by far, the least selected of the nine characteristics by the countries. This, however, does not suggest that the cultures place little value on conflict resolution. For example, China has a collective culture that stresses harmony in all actions and as such, may not identify conflict resolution as a special need. Interestingly, however, the U.S. rated conflict resolution as the lowest need. This is a little disappointing given the recent emphasis on teamwork, but one might expect this from the most individualistic of societies. The next lowest rated factors, 'Intellectual Stimulation' and 'Self-Renewal', clearly illustrate cultural differences. The German culture, more than the others, has long valued the ability of a leader to motivate or influence through intellectual challenges. The Chinese culture has long valued the long-term approach and as such, recognized the importance of a continual renewal of the human body, mind and spirit.

It was surprising to note that the demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, etc.) did not have much of an effect on the managers' recommendations. This seems to suggest that each society has a notion of a "leader ethic" that does not vary within the society. Further, our separation of responses by "supervisory level" was an attempt to assess whether ideas were changing as one progressed up the corporate ladder--with the exception of Germany--they did not.

The following is an interpretation of the findings using Hofstede's (1992) dimensions (as updated) and the respondents' explanations. Further, to supplement these explanations, in-country experts were used, through a Delphi technique, to provide additional insight on the findings. In each case, the country experts had traveled and worked or studied abroad. So each had multi-cultural experience and insight.

Russia

Rhodes and Emery (2003) found that Russia has historically been a very masculine and collectivist society with high uncertainty avoidance and high power distance. There is clear evidence of these cultural influences on leadership effectiveness. Given that 77% of the respondents were male, it is easy to understand why the most selected attribute was 'Begin With the End in Mind--Personal Leadership'. Such a choice is to be expected of a highly masculine society and one with high power distance. The respondents' explanation for choosing this attribute was that it "involves a clear understanding of our desired destination." This would make it a natural "top choice" of a society with high uncertainty avoidance. The close fourth choice of 'Be Proactive--Personal Vision' reinforces these cultural values. Russia's historical cultural values may also explain why the attributes 'Stimulate to Motivate--intellectual growth', and 'Create Win/Win Solutions'--conflict resolution, were not selected by any of the respondents as their top three choices.

Russia is experiencing some changes in these historical cultural values, however, with the advent of glasnost and perestroika in the late 1980's and early 1990's (Rhodes and Emery (2003). These shifts are supported by the fact that the attribute, 'Synergize--Creative Cooperation', was selected as the third choice, particularly when more of the respondents who selected it were young female managers than in any other category.

The country experts acknowledge that Russia is a highly structured and rigidly controlled environment. There is usually little tolerance for individual freedom. One cannot question the decisions of the superiors. Decisions are not negotiated; just carried out. Creativity is not encouraged --it is even stifled in many organizations. This provides insight into why the attributes 'Stimulate to Motivate--Intellectual Growth', and 'Create Win/Win Solutions--Conflict Resolution', were not chosen in the top three. The younger generation, however, is much more active and open to different and new activities. Subjects such as management, organizational behavior, and corporate culture have appeared in only within the past 10--15 years. While Russia remains a strongly hierarchal system, young people are more progressive about their discussions of corporate culture. They are not afraid of being exposed to a variety of experiences to find their own way that is beneficial for their personal and professional growth. These younger managers are more willing to take some risks in experimenting with new approaches in their work to foster their success and to improve their quality of life. This trend may have influenced the selection of 'Synergize--Creative Cooperation' as the third choice.

United States

Hofstede (1980) found that the United States is the most individualistic country in the world and is moderately high in masculinity. It is relatively low in uncertainty avoidance and power distance. There is clear evidence of these cultural influences on perceptions of American respondents on traits attributed to leadership effectiveness. The individualistic nature of the culture and its low power distance are evident in the American managers' selection of 'Be Charismatic--Employee Commitment' as the top attribute. The obvious focus is on the individual employee. The same holds true with the U.S. mangers' third choice, 'Seek First to Understand', 'Then to Be Understood--Empathic Communication'. The respondents' explanations of choosing this attribute was that it is supportive of individual opinions, allows employees to have influence (low power distance), and indicates that managers are willing to assume risk (low emphasis on uncertainty avoidance).

Survey comments from the respondents emphasized the importance of inspirational leadership, positive role modeling from leaders, motivating employees to accomplish goals, staying in touch with employees and demonstrating empathy as keys to leadership success. These preferences provide insight into why they chose 'Employee Commitment' and 'Empathic Communication' in their top three. The U.S. business community's focus on short-term results helps to explain the second choice, 'Put First Things First', and the close fourth choice, 'Beginning With The End In Mind'. Attributes that suggest planning, setting goals, prioritizing tasks and managing time will help leaders achieve short-term results.

China

China is a very collectivist culture, one in which people subordinate individual interests to those of the family, group, and society. Employees are expected to support organizational values, beliefs, visions and goals. Leaders focus on harnessing this commitment, which explains the respondents' top choice, 'Be Charismatic--Employee Commitment'. The Chinese also have a high power distance, so they expect their leaders to make wise choices, and they accept and buy-in to those choices. The Chinese culture is embedded in Confucian values, which produces a long-term (future) orientation. Their second choice, 'Sharpen The Saw--Self-Renewal', reflects this attitude. It is manifested in their balanced focus on continuously improving their physical, social, spiritual and mental health.

The country experts emphasized China's long history of feudalism in which the Emperors were considered as Tianzi (the sun of the Heavy) whose charisma was perceived as a given. This personal magnetism contributes to the leader's ability to create change and to get the people to endorse passionately the leader's ideas, which support the respondents' first choice. Input from the country experts and the respondents emphasized the influence of Confucianism, i.e., self is conceptualized as a relational being that is consistently changeable and developable. This provides insight into their second choice. China is experiencing some transition with the introduction of capitalism over the past 30 years. The slogan "Time is life, time is money!" is posted throughout China and gives rational for the respondents third choice. Very few respondents selected the attribute 'Stimulate to Motivate--Intellectual Growth'. In the Chinese society people are encouraged to be self-motivated and self-monitored in the workplace. If one needs stimulating to be motivated one is perceived as a poor worker or a lazy person.

Germany

German culture is characteristically high in uncertainty avoidance. This dimension helps explain why the respondents selected 'Be Proactive--Personal Vision' as their top choice. They want their leaders to be proactive and establish a vision to provide security and stability. The masculinity of the German society places emphasis on success, assertiveness and performance. These traits help the people avoid uncertainty. The combination of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity also explains the respondents' emphasis on 'Begin With the End in Mind'. They want a clear understanding of desired destinations and the development of strategies to accomplish objectives. Their third choice, 'Stimulate to Motivate', reflects Germany's low power distance. They expect their leaders to help and encourage them to expand their capabilities and creativity.

The country experts emphasize the entrepreneurial nature of the German society. The skills of the managers to influence outcomes are very important. They must be able to think ahead. The respondents emphasized establishing visions and defining goals as important. Companies need "decision makers", and not "decision takers". In order for leaders to be respected, they must demonstrate that they know where they want/expect the organization to go--and that they have a plan. Planning and developing priorities create a sense of being in control.

CONCLUSION

In these days of globalization and fierce competition, it is interesting and valuable to note the similarities and differences of those actions managers' believe are the most important keys to success. This study examined how managers from various cultures rank behavioral attributes that contribute to a leader ethic. A "leader ethic" system is viewed as a relatively permanent perceptual framework that shapes and influences the general nature of a leader's behavior. The significance of investigating the ethic of a manager is seen when one considers the following assertions and their implications: (1) A leader's ethic system influences the way a manager relates to self; (2) A leader's ethic system influences the way a manager relates to workers; (3) A leader's ethic system influences the way a manager relates to goals. As such, knowledge of a culture's "leader ethic" may be of value in selecting and training international workers and managers.

The findings indicate a commonality in the belief that leaders must have a clear understanding of their desired destinations and must develop strategies to accomplish personal objectives. Further, each the cultures highly rated the ability to set priorities and delegate appropriate tasks, i.e. time management and take responsibility for their own life, i.e. personal vision. Interestingly, these three most highly regarded characteristics for effective leadership are Stephen Covey's first three foundational habits. As such, these findings strongly endorse Covey's philosophy that there are universal principles of effectiveness and that there is universal acceptance that effective leadership must start from "within." Also, the credibility of these habits is further endorsed by the fact that they are uniformly recognized across the demographics of gender, age, profession, supervisory level and experience. There were, however, some interesting variations that were peculiar to each culture. For example, China's strong belief in the power of 'Charisma' and 'Self-Renewal', the United States' penchant for 'Empathic Communication and Russia's emphasis on 'Personal Leadership'. The findings also seem to suggest that transformational leadership might be favored in the United States and China. Lastly, the findings strongly endorse the placement of Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (1989) within a business curriculum.

Future studies need to combine the respondent's responses with their rate of advancement to capture additional insight to the values of various cultures. In other words, different managerial behaviors are selectively reinforced in different countries through differential promotion and advancement. Additionally, if indeed these nine characteristics are part of a "leader ethic," one should revisit this list every few years to examine convergence, particularly in light of converging political, industrial and economic characteristics. Data were collected from four distinct cultures: the Far East, Eurasia, Western Europe, and North America, which should provide a sound cross-cultural analysis. It is important to note, however, that mangers from only one country in each cultural region were surveyed. Thus, while the findings are encouraging in their universality, they may not be generalizable across all countries in these diverse cultures. Additionally, future research should include cultures in Africa, the Mid-East, Scandinavia and South America.

REFERENCES

Axerlrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2). Retrieved December 25, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Academic Press.

Bass, B.M, P.C. Burger, R. Doktor & G.V. Barrett (1979). Assessment of managers: An international comparison. New York: Free Press.

Black, R. (1992). Everyone a leader in the 21st century. Healthcare Financial Management, 46(10). Retrieved December 9, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Blake, R.R. & J.S. Mouton (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Brodbeck, F. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1). Retrieved August 23, 2003 from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Collison, J. & D. Cohen (2002). Report of the Global Leadership Survey. Alexandria, VA: Society of Human Resource Management.

Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Harper Business.

Emery, C.R. & R. G. Tian (2003). The Effect of Cultural Differences on the Effectiveness of Advertising Appeals: A Comparison between China and the U.S., Transformations in Business & Economics, 2(1), 48-59.

England, G.W. & R. Lee (1974). The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4), 411-19.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theories of multiple intelligencies. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, 93-104.

Goleman, D., R. Boyatzis & A. McKee (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Haire, M., E.E. Ghiselli & L.W. Porter (1963). Cultural patterns in the role of the manager. Industrial Relations, 2(3), 95-117.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Value. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hofstede, G. (1999). Problems remain, but theories will change: the universal and the specific in the 21st-century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1). Retrieved December 28, 2003, from http://web15.epnet.com/citation/asp.

House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt, & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R., M. Javidian, P. Hanges & P. Dorfman (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(2002). Retrieved December 20, 2003, from www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/sitemap/index/globe/public/publication-2002.html.

Javidian, M. & R. House (2002). Leadership and cultures around the world: findings from GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37 (2002). Retrieved December 20, 2003, from www.haskayne.ucalgary.ca/sitemap/index/globe/public/publication-2002.html.

Judge, W.Q. (2001). Is a leader's character culture-bound or culture-free? An empirical comparison of the character traits of American and Taiwanese CEO's. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(12). Retrieved September 19, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Kreitner, R. & A. Kinicki (2004). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

McKenna, J.F. (1991). Management in the 21st century: a modest proposal. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 56(4). Retrieved December 9, 2003 from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Nahavandi, A. (2003). The art and science of leadership (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nikandrou, I., E. Apospori & N. Papalexandris (2003). Cultural and leadership similarities and variations in the southern part of the European Union. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3). Retrieved August 23, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Ogbor, J.O. (2000). Organizational leadership and authority relations across cultures: beyond divergence and convergence. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 10(1). Retrieved from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Pierce, J.L. & J.W. Newstrom (2003). Leaders & the Leadership Process (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Pillai, R., T.A. Scandura, and E.A. Williams (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4). Retrieved August 23, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Puffer, S. N. (1994). Understanding the bear: a portrait of Russian business leaders. The Academy of Management Executive, 8(1). Retrieved August 25, 2003, from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Rhodes, D.L. & C.R. Emery (2004). The effect of cultural differences on effective advertising: A comparison between Russia and the U.S., Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 7(2), 89-105.

Su, D., Y. Shang & J.F. Hulpke (1998). A management culture revolution for the new century. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 7(1). Retrieved from http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Danny L. Rhodes, Anderson College

Charles R. Emery, Lander University

Robert G. Tian, Coker College

Michael C. Shurden, Lander University

Samuel H. Tolbert, Lander University

Simon Oertel, University of Applied Sciences Trier

Maria Antonova, Kazan State University

Table 1. Emphasized Leader Characteristics by Percentage

Characteristics China Germany

1. Time Management .49 * .29
2. Empathic Communication .23 .35
3. Creative Cooperation .28 .25
4. Self-Renewal .51 * .18
5. Personal Leadership .30 .45 *
6. Personal Vision .23 .55 *
7. Intellectual Stimulation .15 .41 *
8. Conflict Resolution .20 .18
9. Charisma .60 * .35

Characteristics Russia U.S.

1. Time Management .60 * .49 *
2. Empathic Communication .25 .49 *
3. Creative Cooperation .42 * .18
4. Self-Renewal .20 .17
5. Personal Leadership .71 * .44 *
6. Personal Vision .40 * .28
7. Intellectual Stimulation .16 .29
8. Conflict Resolution .18 .08
9. Charisma .13 .56 *

* These characteristics received a .40 or higher response
from managers

Table 2. Demographics of Russia's Top Choices

Characteristic Gender Age Experience

Personal Leadership 74% M 57% <35 70% 0-10 yrs
 26% F 43% >35 30% > 10 yrs

Time Management 88% M 53% <35 66% 0-10 yrs
 12% F 47% >35 34% > 10 yrs

Creative Cooperation 65% M 70% <35 77% 0-10 yrs
 35% F 30% >35 23% > 10 yrs

Personal Vision 90% M 32% <35 71% 0-10 yrs
 10% F 68% >35 29% > 10 yrs

All 76% M 54% <35 69% 0-10 yrs
 24% F 46% >35 31% > 10 yrs

Characteristic Supervision Profession

Personal Leadership 39% Upper 06% Mfg
 61% Mid-low 94% Non-Mfg

Time Management 34% Upper 25% Mfg
 66% Mid-low 75% Non-Mfg

Creative Cooperation 39% Upper 17% Mfg
 61% Mid-low 83% Non-Mfg

Personal Vision 26% Upper 14% Mfg
 74% Mid-low 86% Non-Mfg

All 36% Upper 15% Mfg
 64% Mid-low 85% Non-Mfg

Table 3. Demographics of USA's Top Choices

Characteristic Gender Age Experience

Be Charismatic 46% M 21% <35 25% 0-10 yrs
 54% F 79% >35 75% > 10 yrs

Time Management 51% M 21% <35 32% 0-10 yrs
 49% F 79% >35 68% > 10 yrs

Empathy 54% M 13% <35 21% 0-10 yrs
 46% F 87% >35 79% > 10 yrs

Personal Leadership 56% M 15% <35 32% 0-10 yrs
 44% F 85% >35 68% > 10 yrs

All 52% M 44% <35 29% 0-10 yrs
 48% F 56% >35 71% > 10 yrs

Characteristic Supervision Profession

Be Charismatic 57% Upper 26% Mfg
 43% Mid-low 74% Non-Mfg

Time Management 58% Upper 24% Mfg
 42% Mid-low 76% Non-Mfg

Empathy 50% Upper 32% Mfg
 50% Mid-low 68% Non-Mfg

Personal Leadership 53% Upper 29% Mfg
 47% Mid-low 71% Non-Mfg

All 56% Upper 28% Mfg
 44% Mid-low 72% Non-Mfg

Table 4. Demographics of China's Top Choices

Characteristic Gender Age Experience

Be Charismatic 57% M 52% <35 73% 0-10 yrs
 43% F 48% >35 27% > 10 yrs

Self-Renewal 54% M 44% <35 75% 0-10 yrs
 46% F 56% >35 25% > 10 yrs

Time Management 61% M 48% <35 74% 0-10 yrs
 39% F 52% >35 26% > 10 yrs

All 60% M 47% <35 72% 0-10 yrs
 40% F 53% >35 28% > 10 yrs

Characteristic Supervision Profession

Be Charismatic 20% Upper 13% Mfg
 80% Mid-low 87% Non-Mfg

Self-Renewal 17% Upper 16% Mfg
 83% Mid-low 84% Non-Mfg

Time Management 18% Upper 16% Mfg
 82% Mid-low 84% Non-Mfg

All 20% Upper 15% Mfg
 80% Mid-low 85% Non-Mfg

Table 5. Demographics of Germany's Top Choices

Characteristic Gender Age Experience

Personal Vision 63% M 30% <35 68% 0-10 yrs
 37% F 70% >35 32% > 10 yrs

Personal Leadership 65% M 26% <35 65% 0-10 yrs
 35% F 74% >35 35% > 10 yrs

Intellectual Growth 71% M 38% <35 62% 0-10 yrs
 29% F 62% >35 38% > 10 yrs

All 65% M 29% <35 69% 0-10 yrs
 35% F 71% >35 31% > 10 yrs

Characteristic Supervision Profession

Personal Vision 43% Upper 32% Mfg
 57% Mid-low 68% Non-Mfg

Personal Leadership 50% Upper 26% Mfg
 50% Mid-low 74% Non-Mfg

Intellectual Growth 40% Upper 29% Mfg
 60% Mid-low 71% Non-Mfg

All 36% Upper 27% Mfg
 64% Mid-low 73% Non-Mfg