12

Leadership and culture in New Zealand

Jeffrey C. Kennedy
Nanyang Business School, Singapore

This chapter begins with an overview of New Zealand's historical development, and the cultural themes that have emerged since European settlement in the 1800s. The GLOBE methodology in New Zealand is then described, and New Zealand's pattern of responses to the GLOBE cultural scales is discussed. The next section provides a summary of research into organizational leadership, followed by presentation of the qualitative and quantitative findings of the GLOBE study. The concluding section summarizes the results, provides suggestions for expatriate managers in New Zealand, and identifies limitations of the study.

1.  NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY AND CULTURE

New Zealand is a country consisting of two main islands, two thirds the size of California, in the far corner of the earth's largest ocean, the Pacific. With a population of 4 million, it has fewer people than cities such as Bangkok, London, New York, or Sydney.

New Zealand comprises the last islands of any size to be reached by people. The original inhabitants, the Maori, came from Polynesia around a thousand years ago. About 800 years later, Britain colonized New Zealand, and waves of immigrants from Britain subsequently established settlements. Discovery of gold in 1861 led to an influx of miners from the declining gold fields in Australia and China, followed in 1870 by another wave of assisted immigration from Germany, Scandinavia, and France, as well as the British Isles. The period between the two world wars saw an increase in immigration from Central Europe, whereas the period after the Second World War was characterized by a significant inflow from the Netherlands and Poland. More recently, immigration from Pacific nations (such as Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji) has increased, and the Asian population has been boosted by new arrivals from Indo-China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and other neighbors to the north. In the 1996 census, almost 20% of the population claimed identification with two or more ethnic groups. Around 80% of the population are of European descent, and almost 15% are Maori. Pacific Islanders and Chinese ethnic groups comprise 6.5% and 2.9% respectively of the overall population (Statistics New Zealand, 2001).

Although these figures suggest that it makes little sense to talk of one culture for New Zealand, New Zealanders (self-styled “Kiwis”) will argue strongly for the existence of a unique identity, for the existence of something that sets them apart from others, a “Kiwi culture.” Though some of the components of this identity may be found in other cultures and nations, New Zealanders’ shared experiences and history create a distinctive pattern. In the following paragraphs, a summary of New Zealand's historical development provides insights into some of the key elements of this pattern.

The earliest inhabitants of New Zealand migrated from Polynesia around 1000 AD. The Maori retained aspects of their Polynesian culture, while adapting to the challenges of a less tropical and more rugged physical environment. Maori social organization is largely communal, with social groupings being based on whanau (extended families), hapu (subtribes), and iwi (tribes), usually based on descent from a common ancestor. Communities were ruled by chiefs (rangatira), who generally held their position subject to the community remaining satisfied with their continued good performance. The literal meaning of rangatira is “to weave people together”—a definition of leadership that neatly encapsulates the interdependent and communal nature of Maori society.

In 1642, a Dutch East India Company expedition under Abel Tasman became the first recorded European voyagers to discover New Zealand. Detailed European exploration took place during the 1770s, with several expeditions by the British explorer James Cook. In 1788, a British prison colony was established across the Tasman Sea in New South Wales (now a state in present-day Australia), facilitating greater access to New Zealand. American and British whalers and sealers began to establish bases on the New Zealand coast, and several of these expanded into larger settlements involved in farming and trade in timber and flax.

A British governor was appointed in 1840, and in February he began gaining Maori signatories to the “Treaty of Waitangi.” This document provided for the indigenous Maori to cede aspects of sovereignty to Queen Victoria, gaining the rights and privileges of British subjects, while retaining ownership of their land, forests, and fisheries. It is considered by many to be the founding document of the nation of New Zealand.

Originally an extension of the British colony in New South Wales, New Zealand became a British colony in its own right in 1841. Increasing numbers of settlers arrived, principally from Britain, and a number of planned settlements began to take shape. In the four decades following 1840, the European settler (Pakeha) population grew from 2,000 to almost 500,000. In contrast, but not coincidentally, the Maori population decreased from around 120,000 in pre-European times to 42,000 in 1896, causing some commentators to view them as a “dying race” (Belich, 2001).

Conflict over land and trade, characterized by breaches of trust and Pakeha disregard of the Treaty of Waitangi, sparked off the New Zealand land wars, a bloody series of military actions that reached their peak in the 1860s. The Maori became increasingly marginalized as the Crown confiscated land, and passed legislation that undermined Maori land ownership, language use, education, and health. Although the Maori had continued to seek redress under the Treaty, an 1877 court decision declared it to be a “simple nullity.” It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that increasing Maori activism brought the Treaty back into national consciousness. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established to deal with claims against the Crown under the Treaty, but it was 1985 before the Tribunal was empowered to hear claims dating back to 1840. By 2001, close to U.S.$380 million had been paid or committed to claimants for historical grievances relating to return of land, fisheries, and cultural resources (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2001).

As an integral part of this settlement process, different ethnic groups in New Zealand have had to reassess their identities and relationships with each other. The concept of partnership inherent in the Treaty has been actualized in legislation and policy. The special standing of Maori and Pakeha (as signatories to the Treaty) has generated pressure for greater sharing of power and resources between the two cultures (O'Reilly & Wood, 1991). This trend is not without its critics. Biculturalism, by definition, relegates cultural groups that have arrived in New Zealand since 1840 to a lower standing. Moves to empower such groups through a greater emphasis on multiculturalism are often viewed as attempts to discredit biculturalism, and the claims of Maori under the Treaty (Jones, Pringle, & Shepherd, 2000). Political and economic pressures have increasingly turned New Zealand toward a greater reliance on Asian neighbors, and recent immigration policies encouraging greater Asian investment have served to further energize the debate over cultural identities.

The rapid growth of New Zealand during its early colonial history affected political and economic structures. In an arrangement akin to the American federal system, six provincial governments were established in 1852, but these were abolished in favor of a central government in 1876. A centralized approach was needed in order to fund and coordinate the expensive business of developing the new nation's transport and communications infrastructure.

During the last decades of the 19th century, the central government began to take a much broader and socially progressive role in running the country. In 1877 it provided for a system of free, compulsory education. In 1879 it introduced universal male suffrage, and in 1893 New Zealand became the first country in the world to extend the vote to women.

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was passed in 1894 as a response to public concern about exploitative working conditions. It has been described as “one of the most dramatic contributions New Zealand has made to conceptions of humanitarian democracy” (Hansen, 1968, p. 58). The 1894 Act provided a compulsory system of state arbitration “aimed at preventing class conflict by ensuring the workers an adequate share of the national wealth even as it assured adequate incentive to the employer” (Hansen, 1968, p. 58).

The passing of this Act provides a number of insights into aspects of New Zealand societal values that are still relevant today. The changes it introduced (together with the earlier widening of the electoral franchise) reflect a degree of willingness by the well-off to give up some privilege, wealth, and power. Hansen (1968) argues that this illustrates a gap between the values of the settlers and those dominant in their countries of origin. In particular, the settlers placed greater emphasis on equality, freedom, and individual dignity: “In comparison with England and the United States, and even Australia, New Zealand has most actively and consistently emphasized equalitarianism” (p. 58).

The New Zealand concept of egalitarianism is not restricted to the sense of equal opportunity; it extends to the idea that people should be considered as equal in all aspects of life: “Not only should one person not inherit greater life chances than another; none should be allowed to accumulate a great deal more than another through his own efforts or luck. Exceptional performances or capacities are deprecated by both individuals in a relationship” (Hansen, 1968, p. 60). The phrase “tall poppy syndrome” refers to a tendency in New Zealand to find fault with high achievers, to “cut them down to size” if they act as though their achievements make them better than anyone else. Few academic research studies have been conducted on the phenomenon in New Zealand, but Australian studies of contingencies influencing the tall poppy syndrome are likely to be relevant to New Zealand (see, e.g., Feather, 1993, 1994a, 1994b).

Another aspect of egalitarianism was captured in the feeling held by many working people that they could work their way out of wage dependency and into property ownership on the basis of their individual effort (Fairburn, 1989). Class barriers to upward mobility did not exist to the same extent as in Victorian Britain, and there was little requirement for social or family connections, patronage of the wealthy, intellectual accomplishments, or attendance at the “right” schools. Deeks, Parker, and Ryan (1994) comment on the structures imported into New Zealand from English common law (e.g., the master–servant relationship), but note their comparative weakness. Few households had servants, and there was not the same expectation of deference and servility in such relationships.

Egalitarianism is also apparent in New Zealand labor law, which until 1991 enforced a strict system of awards that acted to ensure uniform minimum pay rates and conditions for the same jobs across all employers. Differentials between skill levels were based on negotiation (by centralized employer and employee organizations) rather than market considerations, and pay for seniority was far more prevalent than pay for performance.

Economically, New Zealand was dependent almost entirely on agricultural exports. Early trade in flax and seafood (primarily with Australia) gave way to exports of meat, wool, and dairy products to Britain. Throughout the period from 1875 until World War II, around 80% of New Zealand exports were sold to the United Kingdom, and over half its imports came from that country (Department of Statistics, 1990). Dependence was not limited to the economic sphere; many political and social institutions and customs had English origins, and settlers continued to refer to Britain as “Home” with a capital H.

New Zealand participation in the South African War (1899–1902) and World War I (where 103,000 served abroad, from a total population of around 1 million) led to a greater sense of national identity. New Zealanders compared themselves favorably with their British regular-force counterparts. In particular, heroic actions of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) at Gallipoli in 1915 are still recalled in annual ceremonies marked by a glorification of Australasian exploits, and a diminution of British (and other Allied) contributions. The dominant and enduring cultural theme portrays New Zealanders as self-reliant pioneers, brave and heroic, demonstrating initiative under pressure. These characteristics were said to engender leadership based on example rather than insistence on “red tape,” by officers who were “‘democratic’ and modest—one of the boys” (Phillips, 1989, p. 96).

The pioneering-settler history, combined with the dependence on farming, gave rise to a strong self-image of New Zealand as a country of rugged individualists in a dramatic rural landscape. The literary incarnation of this theme has a dark side, with an underlying sense of alienation and of distance. This imagery has been used metaphorically in describing interpersonal relationships, and conveys “uncertainties about the influence of the past as well as a lack of confidence in the future” (Lealand, 1988, pp. 29–30). At a more popular level, the rural theme is the setting for much New Zealand humor, is used in locally made television dramas, and is portrayed in many different ways in commercial advertisements (Carter & Perry, 1987).

Another important element of this cultural archetype is a practical, problem-solving approach to life. This involves the willingness to tackle problems and take on responsibilities outside one's normal role. Innovative solutions using tools or materials at hand are valued. Kiwis take pride in being able to fix anything with “a piece of No. 8 fencing wire.” Edmund Hillary was the first person to drive a motorized vehicle overland to the South Pole, and he used converted farm tractors for the expedition (Booth, 1993). Richard Pearse was a farmer who attempted powered flight 9 months before the Wright brothers, in an airplane (featuring a variable pitch propeller, wing flaps, and rear elevator) and petrol engine he constructed with home made tools from scrap metal and other oddments (New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs, 1996; Ogilvie, 1973). More recently, John Britten created the world's fastest four-stroke superbike using innovative design and materials technology (Bridges & Downs, 2000). As Holm has noted (1994), this celebrated trait of “Kiwi ingenuity,” of devising innovative, practical, cost-effective solutions, is now no longer confined to the use of such prosaic materials as fencing wire.

The lasting strength of this masculine, rural image, of the practical man in tune with the elements, belies the level of urbanization in New Zealand. A peak of 75% of the population lived in rural areas in 1871, but this figure has steadily declined. At the most recent census, 85% of New Zealanders lived in urban areas (Statistics New Zealand, 2002).

The introduction of television broadcasts and international passenger jet services (both in the early 1960s), coupled with ongoing improvements in communications technology, contributed to the ongoing reduction in New Zealand's isolation and insulation from the rest of the world (Belich, 2001). Following a period of prosperity during the 1950s and 1960s, New Zealand entered a period of uncertainty during the 1970s. External factors, such as oil price shocks, weakened New Zealand's terms of trade, inflation threatened people's standard of living, government debt increased, and unemployment began to rise. Britain, which had hitherto been the main market for New Zealand exports, entered the European Economic Community, and by 1975 was only taking one fifth of the country's total exports.

Governments during the 1970s responded to these economic problems by providing tax incentives and financial subsidies for agricultural production, and by increasing the size of the state sector in the economy. In 1979, Robert Muldoon's National (center-right) government embarked on a multibillion-dollar plan that targeted import substitution through investment in petrochemical plants (synthetic petrol, natural gas, and oil refining), steel refining, and aluminum smelting. Known colloquially as “Think Big,” the projects failed to meet their ambitious economic and employment targets.

A snap election was called in 1984. A Labour (center-left) government gained power, and immediately faced a foreign-exchange crisis that precipitated a 20% devaluation of the New Zealand dollar. There was, by this time, widespread agreement that significant economic restructuring had to be undertaken. The new minister of finance, Roger Douglas, capitalized on this feeling by initiating a breathtakingly fast-paced, far-reaching program of reform aimed at reducing the role of the state in favor of a more free-market economy. Although consistent with a global shift toward free-market policies, this “radical experiment in a remote part of the Pacific Rim” (Yergin & Stanislaw, 1998, p. 140) went further and faster than comparable programs in other developed countries.

The reforms encompassed financial deregulation, state sector reorganization, and removal of subsidies for agriculture and industry. Controls were removed from areas such as foreign-exchange transactions, interest rates, banking, overseas investments, and the share market. A goods and services tax was introduced and income tax was reduced and simplified in a manner that (contrary to the principle of egalitarianism) benefited the rich more than the poor. Tax concessions, import controls, tariff protections, subsidies, and other restrictions on free trade were phased out.

Government departments that provided a service were “corporatized”—restructured along private-sector, market-oriented lines. Telecommunications, air traffic control services, government research agencies, the postal service, banks, valuation, rail transport, and numerous other activities were transformed into state-owned enterprises and, in many cases, subsequently privatized. Charges were introduced (or increased) for many government services, in an attempt to limit demand as well as to raise revenue. The National government of 1990 continued the reform process, extending the policy of “user pays” for government services, making cuts to welfare spending, and restructuring public hospitals along private-sector corporation lines.

The National government also deregulated the labor market, passing the Employment Contracts Act in 1991. This Act removed legislative recognition of unions, contributing to a halving in union membership from 45% of the workforce in 1989 to 23% in 1994 (Belich, 2001). By promoting flexibility in employment arrangements and responsiveness to market conditions, and through its use of a new vocabulary replacing traditional terms, the Act highlighted the transactional, impersonal aspects of the employment exchange (Peel & Inkson, 2000).

The significant shift in New Zealand's political, social, and economic landscape since 1984 has often clashed with New Zealanders’ underlying cultural values. Though the pioneering sense of self-reliance shows in an intolerance of those considered to “bludge” off the welfare state, the sense of egalitarianism rebels at the thought that some sections of society are unduly benefiting from reforms, whereas others are being unfairly marginalized. Many New Zealanders’ sense of “fair play” has been challenged by evidence of poverty and social exclusion among low-income and Maori households (Stephens, Frater, & Waldegrave, 2000), of absolute declines in the real income of low-income households (Dalziel, 2002), and of the widening income gap between rich and poor (Gendall, Robbie, Patchett, & Bright, 2000).

These concerns led to changes in government priorities at the end of the 1990s. The National government promoted a Code of Social and Family Responsibility, and the Treasury (the department responsible for economic advice to government) introduced “social cohesion” as an element that should be “at the heart of government policy” (Ansley, 2000, p. 16). A Labour-led coalition of center-left parties came to power at the end of 1999, and introduced a raft of changes in areas such as taxation, superannuation, and the health sector, aimed at restoring social equity. The Employment Contracts Act was replaced by legislation that promoted the role of unions and collective bargaining, and imposed a duty of “good faith” on parties in their employment negotiations.

Foreign Policy

Following World War II, New Zealand's identification with Britain as the “Mother Country” weakened. The United States protected New Zealand in the Pacific, whereas most New Zealand troops were fighting in the Mediterranean theater. Over 100,000 Americans were stationed in New Zealand during latter stages of the war, and in the following decades New Zealand's foreign policy became more aligned with that of the United States. New Zealand signed the ANZUS security treaty with Australia and the United States in 1952, and fought alongside both countries in Korea and Vietnam. Since 1971, defense ties with Asian countries have been further reinforced by New Zealand's active participation as a member (with Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom) of the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA).

New Zealand is still supportive of traditional allies, offering military support in the Falklands campaign (1982), in the Persian Gulf War (1991), and in Afghanistan (2001). Increasingly, however, the military orientation is toward peacekeeping, with New Zealand personnel having been deployed with UN peacekeeping or mine-clearing missions to East Timor (the largest commitment of troops since the Korean War), the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Bougainville, Laos, and other regions. In 2000, 31% of the Army was committed to UN operations, and in recent years the Defense Force's strike capacity has been reduced by disbanding the air combat force, whereas emphasis is being given to modernizing transport and maritime surveillance roles (Hughes, 2001; Ministry of Defense, 2001; New Zealand Government, 2001).

New Zealand is now more prepared to take an individual stand on issues rather than uncritically adopt the views of Britain or the United States. A high-profile example was the 1984 Labour government's introduction of a nuclear-prohibition policy in the face of considerable opposition from Western allies. Despite pressure from the United States (including cuts in military cooperation, suspension of the ANZUS treaty, and a downgrading of New Zealand's diplomatic status) the policy passed into law in 1987 (Ware & Dewes, 2000). This policy gained momentum largely because of concern at the effects of ongoing nuclear testing in the Pacific, New Zealand's “back yard.” It illustrates how New Zealand increasingly views its sphere of influence as lying in the southwest Pacific. This shift in political orientation has also led to new themes for our cultural identity. The European linkage is weaker, and a renaissance in Maori culture and traditions coupled with acknowledgment of New Zealand's geographic location, is creating a new identity as a “self-confident, multicultural Pacific nation” (Lealand, 1988).

It is clear from this brief overview that dramatic shifts have taken place in New Zealanders’ conception of their place in the world. The country has moved from dependence to independence, from a Euro-focused worldview toward one centered more on the Asia-Pacific region. It should also be apparent that the dominant cultural themes are not truly representative of the diverse population. Many of the themes are masculine in origin, with pioneering, rural, and military provenances. The perspectives of women and Maori are underrepresented. Similarly, women and Maori are underrepresented in management within New Zealand organizations. In common with the cultural themes presented in this section, the GLOBE research discussed in the next section reflects a primarily male (and New Zealand European) perspective. This does not make the perspective any less important, but it serves to delimit it.

2.  THE GLOBE STUDY—SOCIETAL CULTURE

As described in the first chapter in this volume, the GLOBE project used both quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data on cultural values and perceptions of effective leader behaviors. The following section reports results from the surveyed middle managers’ ratings of New Zealand society in terms of the GLOBE dimensions, followed by a discussion incorporating additional material from public information and observations.

In line with the overall GLOBE methodology, the questionnaire was distributed to middle managers in business organizations operating in three different industries: finance (N = 69), food processing (N = 53) and telecommunications (N = 62). A description of each industry is provided in the Appendix. Personal contact was used to ensure close to 100% return rates and, in order to increase representativeness of the sample, only four to six questionnaires were completed within each company or business unit.

Key demographic characteristics of the sample of 184 managers can be summarized as follows:

• New Zealand residence: 79% had lived in New Zealand all their life, whereas 16% had spent more than 3 years out of the country.
• Working experience: The full-time working experience of the sample ranged between 2 and 45 years with a median of 20 years, and with 8 years being the median for holding a management position. Years spent with the current employer ranged from less than 1 through to a maximum of 41, with a median of 11 years. Thirty-eight percent had worked for a multinational corporation, either in New Zealand or overseas.
• Staff: The median number of people directly reporting to the manager was 5, with only 9% of the sample having more than 10 subordinates. The maximum number of levels from the manager to his or her CEO was four, with a median of two.

The GLOBE study included a quantitative assessment of societal cultural values, seeking information on the extent to which values are reflected in current practices in society (“As Is”) and the emphasis that respondents felt should be given to each value (“Should Be”). Details on these measures can be found in the introductory chapter. Table 12.1 presents the results for New Zealand in terms of absolute scores (on a rating scale from 1 to 7) and comparative rankings with other countries on the GLOBE cultural dimensions.

In considering the current situation (“As Is”), New Zealand ranked in the highest 20% of countries on the dimensions of Performance Orientation (Rank 5), Institutional Collectivism (Rank 5) and Uncertainty Avoidance (Rank 12). In an international context, New Zealand therefore stands out as being a society that places importance on high standards of performance, while supporting practices that encourage collective distribution of resources and collective action. It is also characterized by a reliance on social norms, rules, and procedures to reduce unpredictability and uncertainty.

In contrast, it ranked at the low end of the sample in regard to Power Distance (Rank 47), Future Orientation (Rank 48), In-Group Collectivism (Rank 59), and Assertiveness (Rank 61). These rankings indicate that New Zealand society values egalitarianism more highly than most other countries in the sample, and is second only to Sweden in the importance placed on individualism—on independence as opposed to family cohesiveness and loyalty. The emphasis on planning or investing for the future and willingness to delay gratification is lower than in most countries. Finally, New Zealand managers show one of the lowest levels of acceptance of assertiveness, confrontation, and aggression in relationships with others; only Swedish managers rated this dimension lower.

Comparison of New Zealand's “As Is” scores with “Should Be” scores indicates a desire for change in several areas. The managers in the sample expressed a strong desire to place much more emphasis on values consistent with In-Group Collectivism, increasing the rating given to this dimension by 2.54 (on a 7-point scale), producing the third-highest “Should Be” rating of all countries. They also wanted to see a much greater emphasis on Future Orientation, lifting the rating given to this dimension by 2.07, and changing the “As Is” ranking of 48 to a “Should Be” ranking of 31. Although there was a desire for further emphasis on Performance Orientation, other countries sought to increase more, and New Zealand's “Should Be” ranking dropped back to 34.

Though New Zealand managers reported a low level of Power Distance, and wanted to see emphasis on this value further reduced, managers in most other countries wanted an even larger reduction in Power Distance. As a result, New Zealand ranks highly in regard to the “Should Be” value of Power Distance (Rank 3). This suggests that New Zealand managers are, in comparative terms, reasonably satisfied with existing levels of Power Distance.

The discussion of the dominant cultural themes in New Zealand indicates the emphasis placed on male views of society. The majority of survey respondents were male; they acknowledged that New Zealand society is male oriented, and expressed a desire to see a greater shift toward a more gender-balanced orientation.

In regard to Humane Orientation, the managers saw New Zealand as being around the midpoint of the scale, and expressed little desire to shift from this position. Most other countries felt they needed to emphasize this dimension more, and as a result the New Zealand ranking shifted from 19 (“As Is”) to 61 (“Should Be”).

The following paragraphs explore these findings, using examples from public sources, interviews, and observations.

Institutional Collectivism. An example of New Zealanders’ concern for collective interests comes from a recent survey undertaken as part of a global study of social policy issues (Gendall et al., 2000). Most of the respondents were in favor of a progressive tax system, with 70% believing that taxes on those with low incomes are too high. Large proportions of the sample were in favor of increased government spending on health (90%), education (85%), assistance to the unemployed (60%), and pensions (60%), even if this meant an increase in taxes.

New Zealand's long history of a collective approach toward workplace bargaining is also consistent with this value. For almost a century prior to 1991, employment conditions for different classes of work were determined by comprehensive collective bargaining between employer and union representatives, resulting in a binding agreement known as an “Award.” The shift to an individualistic, contractual focus (with the 1991 Employment Contracts Act) has now been reversed with legislation that explicitly encourages collective bargaining (Employment Relations Act, 2000).

Uncertainty Avoidance. Hofstede ranks New Zealand as 39 out of 53 countries on his measure of Uncertainty Avoidance (2001, Exhibit 4.1). As discussed by Hanges and Dickson (2004), the Hofstede scale corresponds to the GLOBE values (“Should Be”) scale, where New Zealand is also ranked in the bottom quartile. In terms of practice (“As Is”), however, New Zealand is ranked in the highest quartile of countries. This scale includes items such as the extent to which laws or rules exist to cover most situations, the tendency for people to lead structured lives, and the relative emphasis on orderliness and consistency.

Writers have often attacked the pressure for conformity in New Zealand. Charles Brasch (quoted in Geraets, 1984, p. 81) writes of “the pressure of conformity.” Author Dan Davin vividly captures elements of the emphasis on structured lives and consistency (1984, p. 105): “In New Zealand everyone knows everyone more or less: those you don't know personally you might just as well because they're bound to be very like the people you know already; or think you know, because of course everyone's different deep down but in New Zealand the stereotype that controls what you can say or be seen to do is very strong.” The New Zealand Survey of Values found that of a list of six important life qualities (comfort and prosperity, excitement, security and stability, accomplishing things, being respected, salvation) security was ranked first, accomplishing things second, and comfort/prosperity third. In regard to important job characteristics, job security and good pay were ranked at the top of the list (Gold & Webster, 1990).

In a recent international study of entrepreneurship (Frederick & Carswell, 2001), New Zealand ranked 15th out of 29 countries in tolerance for uncertainty—further evidence that the Hofstede work underestimated the extent of Uncertainty Avoidance in New Zealand society.

A comprehensive state-funded accident insurance and rehabilitation scheme reduces uncertainty for all New Zealanders by removing the right to sue for personal injury, in return for providing universal coverage for injuries. Many commentators have argued that government has been too involved in the detailed regulation of everyday life (“regulomania” in the words of James Belich, 2001) and of business activities (Easton, 2000).

It is possible that uncertainty engendered by the dramatic economic restructuring of the past 20 years has created a desire for greater stability. Weariness with change is setting in, and this may be reflected in a desire for greater certainty and predictability (Ansley, 2000). However, the existence of a “nanny state” creating security for its people “from cradle to grave” appears to be congruent with underlying values in New Zealand, and with the comparatively high ranking on Uncertainty Avoidance.

Performance Orientation. New Zealanders have always taken pride in the world-beating achievements of people from such a small (in population terms) country. New Zealanders have been the first to split the atom (Ernest Rutherford), to climb Mt. Everest (Ed Hillary), to fly direct from England to New Zealand (Jean Batten). Twenty years ago, V. S. Naipaul wrote of the contribution New Zealand has made to the world, proclaiming that “more gifted men and women have come from its population of three million than from the 23 millions of Argentines” (1980, p. 153). A comparative study of national pride in 23 countries revealed that New Zealanders ranked second in the amount of pride they displayed in their country's sporting achievements, and third in pride in science/technology and arts and literature (Smith & Jarkko, 2001).

Expectations and encouragement for high performance are evident particularly in the sporting arena, where New Zealanders have performed creditably on the international stage in athletics, yachting, rugby, softball, rowing, swimming, and other events. Athletes have very high expectations placed on them by the public, and are severely criticized when their performance drops.

In the business arena, rapid deregulation of the economy from the mid-1980s has opened domestic firms to international competition, and removed almost all governmental subsidies and protection. New Zealand was recently ranked first out of 47 countries on the criteria of lack of protectionism, lack of price controls, and accessibility to foreign financial institutions (IMD International, 2000). These factors, together with geographical isolation from most trading partners, have put pressure on companies to lift their performance to (or above) international standards.

This emphasis on performance may seem at odds with the “tall poppy syndrome” discussed in the opening section of this chapter, but an important issue is the attitude displayed by the high achiever. A contributor to an Internet discussion on the topic expressed it this way: “New Zealanders do not resent success; what we do despise, and will cut down to size, is the braggart and the show-off. You can be as successful as you like and you will be respected for it, but the moment that you let it go to your head and start acting as if you are better or more important than other people … you will lose our respect” (Watson, 1994).

There is an interesting tension between Performance Orientation and Egalitarianism. A high performer, by definition, stands out from the crowd. McKinlay (2000) discusses the experience of New Zealand investment bankers, who note a reluctance in New Zealand entrepreneurs to build their personal wealth beyond the U.S.$5million–$10 million mark. Many seem concerned that it is not socially acceptable to build major private wealth (even though it may lead to significant employment and wealth gains for other New Zealanders as well). The market-based reforms of the 1980s and 1990s encouraged a “winner take all” mentality that sits uneasily with many New Zealanders. The chief executive of a government department recently scrapped a performance-pay system on the grounds that it was unfair, proving more generous for those in senior positions than for those at the bottom (Watkins, 2003). Such concerns may underlie the lower ranking of New Zealand managers on the “Should Be” Performance Orientation scale.

Assertiveness. At the other end of the scale, New Zealand scored second-lowest of all countries on the Assertiveness dimension. The Survey of Values, in looking at the values emphasized in child training, found a high level of national consensus regarding the importance of pleasantness, politeness, and good manners (Gold & Webster, 1990).

It is difficult to locate objective international comparisons of business practice that might illustrate this dimension further, but there are many examples of New Zealanders believing they lack the aggression of international trading partners. This is well illustrated by comparisons with our closest neighbor, Australia—a nation that shares many historical experiences and cultural attributes with New Zealand. On the GLOBE cultural scales, the biggest absolute scale difference between the two countries is on Assertiveness, where Australia ranks 22nd with a rating of 4.28, compared to New Zealand's score of 3.42 and rank of 60. Consistent with this difference, Australians are viewed by many New Zealanders as more aggressive in sporting, political, and business domains. High-profile examples include their willingness to exploit a loophole in the rules to ensure they won a cricket match (using an underarm bowl), the Australian government's reneging on an “open skies” deal so as to deny New Zealand's national airline access to the Australian domestic air travel market, the Australian Rugby Union's success in gaining full hosting rights for the 2003 rugby world cup, and the aggressive tactics used by Australian airline Qantas in its efforts to dominate the trans-Tasman travel market.

In contrast with the low Assertiveness ranking, values of aggressiveness, competitiveness, and domination are commonly portrayed and encouraged by “male” sports in New Zealand (Gidlow, Perkins, Cushman, & Simpson, 1994). The dominant sporting code in New Zealand is rugby, a physically aggressive variety of football played by teams of 15, without the benefit of helmets or padding. Perhaps its popularity is partly due to the outlet it provides for socially acceptable aggression, whether by participants or (vicariously) by spectators.

In-Group Collectivism. The middle manager sample also rated New Zealand very low on In-Group Collectivism. Though the average score of 3.67 is just below the scale midpoint, it is the third-lowest rating of all countries in the sample. It contrasts markedly with the high ranking (fifth) on Institutional Collectivism. This pattern of high Institutional Collectivism and very low In-Group Collectivism is also found in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.

There is a theme of independence running through the dominant New Zealand European cultural archetypes, and this carries over into attitudes toward the family. Young New Zealanders are keen to leave the family, to make their own way, often starting with a period of “OE” (overseas experience). It is uncommon for adults (whether single or married) to share their home with older generations. State support (in the form of universal superannuation, unemployment benefits, payments to single mothers, study allowances, sickness benefits, etc.) reduces the financial obligation on family members to support relatives. There may also be a historical pattern, with those immigrants willing to come to New Zealand being the ones who were more prepared to sever family ties with relatives left behind.

In a critical commentary on the insular nature of many New Zealand families, popular author Gordon McLauchlan suggested that there are “few secure traditional extensions to the nuclear group, either sideways to brothers, sisters, cousins or through marriage to in-laws; and there are no extensions vertically to those who have gone before and who will come after; so that we have no identity in place or time” (McLauchlan & Morgan, 1976, p. 40).

Several statistics reflect the lack of closeness and support prevailing in many New Zealand families—New Zealand has the highest level of youth suicide among comparable OECD countries (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 2002), and one of the highest rates of teenage births of any industrialized country (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 1998). Though most dependent children under 18 years of age live with two parents, the proportion has declined over time, from 84% in 1986, to 76% in 1996. Over the same period, the proportion of dependent children living in mother-only families rose from 14% to 21%, and the proportion living in father-only families increased from 2% to 3% (Child, Youth and Family, 1999).

Hofstede's study (conducted in the 1970s) ranked New Zealand as sixth out of 53 countries on his individualism scale (2001). In a study conducted after the GLOBE data were gathered, New Zealand ranked second out of 23 countries using the Hofstede measure of individualism (Spector et al., 2001). Given the communal nature of traditional Maori society, it is important to note that this stable, distinctive characteristic of individualism is a mark of the dominant New Zealand European culture. Geographic isolation, the separation of pioneer settlers from families in their homeland, and the literary themes of “man alone” all resonate with the importance of “the independent self” and a subordination of relatedness needs to the primacy of individual goals and preferences.

The desire for greater emphasis on In-Group Collectivism indicated by the “Should Be” score reflects a yearning for a sense of family connectedness. This desire may also be underlying the trend toward greater acceptance and introduction of “family friendly” workplace policies (Rotherham, 1998).

Power Distance. New Zealand's low Power Distance rating is consistent with the key theme of egalitarianism emerging from the discussion of New Zealand culture in the introduction to this chapter. It would be wrong to categorize New Zealand as classless, but there is an inherent dislike of elitism. Historian Keith Sinclair talks of the “common colonist's” “distaste for privilege” and how this “distinguished the New Zealanders even among the peoples of America and Australia.” Although acknowledging that New Zealand is not a classless society, he claims that it “must be more nearly classless … than any advanced society in the world. Some people are richer than others, but wealth carries no great prestige and no prerogative of leadership” (Sinclair, 1969, p. 285).

In the years since those words were written, the gap between rich and poor has increased significantly (Ansley, 2000). Power Distance is positively correlated with the size of the salary range between the top and bottom of organizations across different societies (Hofstede, 2001). As would be expected in a country with low Power Distance, 80% of New Zealanders consider the increasing differences in wealth to be “unacceptable” (Gold & Webster, 1990), and a majority would like to see income gaps reduced (Gendall et al., 2000).

Hierarchical differences between levels in New Zealand organizations are not as clearly marked by symbols or language as they are in higher Power Distance cultures. Use of first names is common, even between senior managers and junior employees, and extreme perks of office (such as executive washrooms, elevators, or dining rooms) are almost nonexistent. In universities, students usually address academic staff by first names. In one New Zealand University, staff teaching into a degree program in Malaysia (a higher Power Distance country) were asked not to encourage the students to use first names as it made them uncomfortable.

Future Orientation. New Zealand's rating on this dimension ranks 48th among the surveyed countries. The average of 3.47 suggests that we place a comparatively low emphasis on future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification.

New Zealand household saving is low by OECD standards, and has been falling in recent years (Savage, 1999). Saving requires a person or household to forego the pleasure of current expenditure in order to provide for some possible event in the future, and savings decisions are therefore partly a reflection of Future Orientation. Historically New Zealand has had a comprehensive social welfare scheme financed from general taxation; wage and salary earners are not required to pay regular contributions to a social security fund. This reduces the risks associated with nonsaving, and may encourage a “live for the day” mentality. In September 1997, a referendum on the possible introduction of a compulsory retirement savings scheme was held. Eighty percent of eligible voters participated, with over 90% voting against the scheme.

In an organizational context, recent surveys suggest that New Zealand companies are not paying sufficient attention to long-term planning. A study of manufacturing companies found evidence of a short-term orientation among many of the sampled firms (Knuckey, Leung-Wai, & Meskill, 1999). A more comprehensive survey of all sectors concluded that managers were excessively focused on short-term goals and need to take a longer-term strategic view in order to achieve sustainable adaptation (Wevers International Ltd/Centre for Corporate Strategy, 1996).

These examples are consistent with the relatively low rating given to Future Orientation by the managers in our sample. They also suggest the reasons for such a high emphasis being given to the “Should Be” rating. Over recent years, increasing public attention has been paid to the inadequacy of most households’ preparations for the future. Demographic trends and government reductions in social security provision have highlighted the need for individuals to adopt a longer time horizon for their planning, whereas economic deregulation and removal of subsidies have created similar pressures on businesses.

Humane Orientation. New Zealand's low “Should Be” ranking on the Humane Orientation scale may be a reflection of complacency with its past reputation as a welfare state. The country introduced its first state-funded welfare assistance (an old-age pension) in 1898, extending into additional programs that culminated in the 1938 Social Security Act, “a bold and daring experiment that deeply influenced the course of legislation in other countries” (Briggs, 1965, p. 67). Such initiatives gave New Zealand a deserved reputation as one of the leading welfare states in the immediate postwar period.

Contrasting with this early emphasis on social security is the cultural theme of independence, and the value placed on people achieving success through their own efforts. This perspective has resulted in people on welfare payments being criticized as lazy, and labeled as “dole bludgers.” Gold and Webster's survey (1990) asked for perceptions of whom or what is responsible for poverty and deprivation in New Zealand. Although most respondents attributed it to external causes (unfairness, injustice, bad luck), the single most popular explanation was laziness. The authors concluded that “sympathy for the poor and deprived in New Zealand is not as deeply rooted as it might be” (p. 19).

New Zealand's position as a leading welfare state has declined since the 1960s. In the mid1980s, the government reformed the welfare system, shifting from one of universal assistance to one that provided a “safety net” for those in the greatest of need, and that encouraged self-sufficiency (Statistics New Zealand, 1995). In the period since completion of the GLOBE data gathering, New Zealanders have become more concerned about the evidence of increasing social disadvantage, and there is greater support for more government spending on core welfare state activities. However, this humane attitude is kept in check by concern regarding possible negative effects of welfare on self-reliance, and on the willingness of people to help each other—40% of New Zealand respondents to the International Social Survey Programme study on social equality believed that less generous welfare benefits would encourage people to “stand on their own two feet” (Gendall et al., 2000). The GLOBE respondents gave very similar ratings to both the “As Is” and “Should Be” Humane Orientation scales, suggesting satisfaction with the current balance between support for the needy and encouragement of independence.

Themes

The GLOBE societal culture scales present a pattern that is consistent with the preceding discussion of underlying cultural themes in New Zealand. The importance of Egalitarianism is captured in the low rating given to Power Distance. When coupled with Performance Orientation, it becomes clear that people are more likely to be judged on their accomplishments than by their background. The cultural emphasis on performance also makes it clear that New Zealanders like winners, but the winners need to be humble. Assertiveness, especially if it shades into aggressiveness in pursuit of personal goals, is unwelcome. People take pride in belonging to the wider collective, to social groupings or the country as a whole. However, there is a sense of dislocation, of being unhappy at a perceived lack of family collectiveness, which echoes some of the literary cultural themes of “man alone.” Finally, the independence of the pioneer, the expectation of having to make one's own way, lives on in the responses to the Humane Orientation scale.

Several of these themes underpin the culturally implicit theory of leadership held by New Zealanders. The next section begins with an overview of organizational leadership research in New Zealand, and is followed by discussion of the GLOBE leadership study.

3.  LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN NEW ZEALAND

During the 1970s George Hines, a psychologist at Victoria University of Wellington, carried out a program of survey research into the background, business practices, motivation, and psychological characteristics of over 2,400 New Zealand managers (Hines, 1973). He reported that New Zealand managers placed a significantly greater weight on interpersonal relationships than did North American and European managers. He suggested that this finding related to the small size of New Zealand companies, the opportunities for frequent interactions between people at all levels, and the lack of arbitrary class differences. Individuality and independence were valued, together with an emphasis on performance rather than social status. New Zealand (at that time) also lacked large salary differentials within organizations.

In small organizations, employees know managers personally, decisions are generally conveyed face-to-face, and there is nowhere to hide when problems arise. Sir James Wattie, founder of Wattie's Foods, is a good example of these attributes. As chief executive, he used to eat in the staff cafeteria, and placed a high value on the information he gained from informal interaction with staff at all levels in his factory. This approach contrasts markedly with the more formal, individualistic culture imposed on Wattie's by the multinational Heinz company, after it acquired Wattie's in 1992 (Irving & Inkson, 1998).

Hines's survey was consistent with other research that had found New Zealand managers to be conservative in outlook (Wilson & Patterson, 1968). He commented on the association between conservatism and other factors, including adherence to rules and regulations, resistance to change, compliance with existing norms, and a preference for stability, predictability, and security—attributes consistent with a high level of Uncertainty Avoidance.

Prior to 1984, it may have been possible for managers in New Zealand's protected economy to avoid uncertainty; after 1984 it was no longer an option. The qualities reflected by leadership research and practice during the 1970s would not suffice for the 1990s or beyond. The sense of sharp transition, of a watershed in the demands on leaders, is clear:

Transformational leaders became more visible at the helm of many New Zealand companies (Inkson, Henshall, Marsh, & Ellis, 1986), the prevalence of “high commitment” management practices increased (Hamilton, Dakin, & Loney, 1992), and research began to indicate the increased value subordinates placed on transformational behaviors (Singer, 1985).

In 1993 and 1996, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) published studies that examined the ways in which New Zealand private-sector management had adjusted to the structural changes and deregulation of the preceding decade (Campbell-Hunt & Corbett, 1996; Campbell-Hunt, Harper, & Hamilton, 1993). These reports found evidence of increasing emphasis on teamwork, training, and performance rewards (with a dramatic increase in the use of performance-linked pay systems since the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991). Consequently, longer-term issues such as career development, labor planning, and the link between training policy and strategic planning received insufficient attention. This pattern is consistent with the high Performance Orientation and low Future Orientation scores of New Zealand managers.

The NZIER studies revealed that managers showed increasing awareness of the need to create more flexible organization structures, to improve the communication of their vision to staff, and to involve people more effectively in the development of strategy. Evidence suggested, however, that many managers did not know how to transform this awareness into action (Frater, Stuart, Rose, & Andrews, 1995; Wevers & Company, 1994). Campbell-Hunt and Corbett concluded, in 1996, that New Zealand managers were “only part-way through a change in style from a hierarchical, ‘command and control’ mentality to an empowering, ‘delegate and coach’ style” (p. 98).

Rippin (1995) explored managerial behavior in more depth, seeking to identify the characteristics of effective New Zealand managers. She used the repertory grid technique (Stewart, 1981) to elicit constructs underlying chief executives’ perceptions of the effectiveness of senior managers. The broad pattern of competencies emerging from her study was similar to that identified in studies carried out in other countries. One difference she noted was the high contribution of perceived technical skills to judgments of the effectiveness of senior managers—something she suggested might be a function of the New Zealand culture, the “Colonial spirit” (p. 133).

Rippin (1995) developed a questionnaire containing over 300 items to measure the constructs identified in the repertory grid study, and administered it to 185 senior managers. Analysis revealed a six-factor structure, with the first factor (Interpersonal Skills) accounting for 40% of the variance. The 20 highest loading items on this factor reveal a pattern of inclusive, egalitarian, and participative attributes. Key words from these items include: takes a genuine interest in people, makes people feel at ease, is consultative, sensitive, empathetic, accessible, treats all people as their equal, is compassionate, can laugh at themselves, is a team player, has a harmonizing effect, and has a basic respect for all staff in the organization (1995, p. 152).

Cammock, Nilakant, and Dakin (1995) also used repertory grid interviews to develop items for a questionnaire survey exploring perceptions of managerial effectiveness. They located their study in a large New Zealand public-sector organization and interviewed staff from all levels, not just managers. The resulting model placed more emphasis on personal characteristics (as opposed to skilled behavior) than most (non-New Zealand) competency studies. Two broad factors (Conceptual and Interpersonal) emerged. Effective managers were seen as positive, visible, approachable, friendly, supportive, consultative, willing to learn from others, and honest in their dealings with staff. In regard to conceptual abilities, they instilled a clear sense of purpose, constantly looked for new approaches, considered the long term, did not get bogged down in detail, had a good sense of priorities, and displayed high levels of drive and enthusiasm (p. 456).

In both of these studies (Cammock et al., 1995; Rippin, 1995), the researchers created leadership models based on the responses of their subjects. In contrast, Parry and Proctor (2000) surveyed over 1,300 private- and public-sector managers in New Zealand using standard leadership and organizational questionnaires, including the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and the Organization Description Questionnaire (ODQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The managers scored at a generally high level in regard to the display of transformational leadership behaviors (in line with norms for other Western countries). They differed, however, in displaying more “contingent reward” behaviors than managers in similar countries. These behaviors are transactional in nature, focusing on an exchange between leader and follower, rather than the development of shared values and vision. Parry and Proctor viewed this comparatively high use of contingent reward by New Zealand managers as a cause for concern. They speculated that the 15 years of economic reform (since 1984) may “have created a generation of very transactionally-minded and contractually-oriented people” (p. 32)—a view that is consistent with Peel and Inkson's (2000) evidence for a shift from relational to transactional employment contracts during this period.

Contemporary leadership research is beginning to reflect the “Maori renaissance,” emerging Pacific cultural themes, and the increasing diversity of New Zealand society. With the Treaty of Waitangi settlements leading to greater Maori investment in property, tourism, and fishing industries, there is an increased interest in Maori leadership (Tapsell, 1997). Henry (as cited in Jones et al., 2000) identified a range of leadership styles adopted by Maori women. These include, for example, kuia (wise elder-grandmother) authoritarian leadership, and whaea (mother) guiding and leading from behind. These styles stem from family position and traditional precolonial leadership roles, and were distinct from the leadership roles identified in a study of Pakeha women-run organizations. Pfeifer and Love (2004) compared Maori and Pakeha leadership styles using the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and found evidence of differences in perceptions of leadership styles between these two cultural groups. Ah Chong and Thomas (1997) compared Pacific Island and Pakeha leaders, and identified style variations attributable to cultural differences (especially in regard to task-oriented behaviors).

These emergent themes are likely to influence the mainstream model of business leadership in New Zealand over the coming years. The GLOBE methodology lends itself to explorations of culture- and gender-based variations, and Pfeifer (2005) has used the framework to identify similarities and differences in how Maori and Pakeha followers perceived the outstanding leadership behavior of culturally similar leaders.

The following section assesses the predominant implicit leadership theory currently held by New Zealand middle managers.

4.  THE GLOBE STUDY—LEADERSHIP

The leadership component of the GLOBE study in New Zealand consisted of interviews, a focus group, media analysis, and questionnaire-based data collection. The focus group was conducted with 10 participants, including 2 women. Five were chief executives of companies (representing food, manufacturing, finance, and the service sectors), three were company directors with previous management experience, one was a human resource manager, and one was a partner in a financial services firm. Introductory comments by the facilitator set the scene, encouraging the participants to discuss their views of leadership, contrasts between management and leadership, and aspects of leadership unique to New Zealand. Minimal guidance was provided during the discussion, which was tape-recorded and transcribed for subsequent analysis.

Semistructured interviews were conducted with one female and two male senior managers; the interviews included broad, open-ended questions about the characteristics of effective leaders, behaviors associated with ineffective leaders, examples of outstanding leaders, and contrasts between management and leadership. Interviewees were given freedom to discuss widely around these topics. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and analyzed in order to identify key themes.

Additional qualitative insights into New Zealand leaders were gained from analysis of leadership references in print media during a 1-week period at the end of 1997 (Godfrey & Kennedy, 1998). The sample media comprised two business magazines (Management and New Zealand Business), two business weekly newspapers (The Independent and National Business Review), and three daily newspapers (Auckland's New Zealand Herald, Wellington's Dominion, and Christchurch's The Press). All references to New Zealand leaders (in political, commercial, and community spheres) were identified and coded, before being analyzed to identify emergent themes.

Finally, the GLOBE quantitative leadership scales were administered to 184 managers. Details of the sample demographics are summarized in the earlier section on the societal culture survey, whereas development of the questionnaire is described in the first chapter in this volume.

Focus Groups and Interviews

Similar themes emerged from the focus group and interviews (Fearing, Heyward, Kennedy, & O'Sullivan, 1995); these are summarized in Table 12.2. Average managers were described as primarily maintaining the status quo through control and enforcement of existing policies and procedures. They were considered better managers of things than of people, and some members of the focus group felt this characteristic was often associated with a weakness in regard to understanding human nature. They did not have an innate understanding of how to motivate people, and tended to be ineffective delegators.

More effective managers shared some of these characteristics, but were regarded as willing to question goals, procedures, and processes in order to explore opportunities, and seek lateral alternatives. They typically had greater people skills, and were able to lead effectively by example. They were more willing to take risks than were average managers, and could marshal resources to achieve results over and above routine expectations.

Average managers were viewed as controllers, whereas leaders were more democratic and team oriented. The focus group was convened shortly after the death of one of New Zealand's celebrated war heroes, double–Victoria Cross winner Charles Upham. One of the group participants noted that Upham always claimed his team was “very hard to control, but a lot easier to lead.” This captures the ambivalent feeling many New Zealanders have in regard to formal restraint and control.

In distinguishing leadership from management, participants also emphasized the importance of developing a clear vision, and a set of beliefs that are passed on to peers and subordinates. Leaders were seen as high achievers, with their success leavened by humility. New Zealanders like “humble winners.” Several participants expressed reservations about setting any leader up as a role model for others, commenting that this could result in the leader “play acting” or focusing on meeting others’ expectations at the expense of integrity and commitment to their job. Rather than a role model to aspire to, New Zealanders prefer a leader they can relate to; modesty and quiet confidence are respected. Furthermore, leaders were not expected to be successful leaders for all time, or in all situations. Charles Upham, for example, returned to a farming life after his successful wartime leadership role.

TABLE 12.2
Manager and Leader Characteristics Identified by Focus Group

Characteristics Reported by Focus Group Participants
Average Manager	Above-Average Manager	Outstanding Leader
•  Concerned with maintenance •  Better at managing things •  Policies and procedures •  Controller, not expander •  Maintains status quo •  Regular (e.g., works 9a.m. to 5p.m.) •  Not completely focused •  Compromises •  Doesn't fully understand human nature •  Problems with delegation •  Patterned •  Controlled outcome, standard requirement	•  Has flair for growth and opportunity •  Uses lateral thinking •  Good with people and involves them as a team •  Communicates well •  Growth oriented: sets some goals •  Uncertain about projecting visions and beliefs throughout the organization •  Not visionary: works on a day-to-day or yearly basis •  More focused than average manager •  Prepared to take risks to some extent •  Leads by example •  Not afraid of making important decisions •  Has better understanding of people and the business than the average manager •  Aims to achieve a result beyond given expectations •  Uses resources effectively	•  Total commitment (“love”) for people •  Articulate and persuasive •  Possess high degree of integrity •  High achiever, both in and outside of work •  Charismatic—has the “X” factor •  Consistent •  Democratic •  Trusting of others •  Team player •  Have strong communication and people skills •  Customer oriented •  Humble •  Imperfect, but knows own weaknesses •  Have respect for self •  Experienced and well-rounded •  Pragmatic

A cluster of traits emerging from the focus group discussion concerned the personal characteristics of modesty, humility, and recognition of one's own weaknesses, balanced with a healthy respect for self and others. Outstanding leaders in New Zealand are not self-absorbed, “cocky,” or bent on Machiavellian control of others. They see their leadership role as being based in the team, not outside it. They evidence a strong commitment to the value of teamwork, a willingness to be a “team player” themselves, and to actively contribute their own efforts and ideas, rather than try to lead from a distance. As one participant noted: “They get around their troops a lot, they make sure they talk to everybody; they make people really feel part of a team, as though they're important. It's their people skills; they understand the strengths and weaknesses of the team.”

Media Analysis

A total of 557 data elements (from 320 separate text extracts) were categorized iteratively, starting with fine-grained categories containing only a few items. These were combined progressively into broader groupings in successive rounds, resulting in a final number of 25 categories. Table 12.3 lists the categories grouped into five main facets of leadership—organization management, people management, personality, ability, and image. The most frequently represented categories are listed first in each column whereas categories containing less than six data elements (equivalent to 1% of the total set) are printed in italics. Categories including elements referring only to political leaders are labeled (P).

The largest category, representing 30% of the data elements, was that of personality traits. Within this cluster, the largest subcategory referred to determination, resolve, “stickability” and perseverance toward accomplishment of goals. Confidence was the second-largest subcategory, encompassing belief in oneself, and an optimistic outlook. Passion, energy, and commitment comprised the next cluster of attributes. Several attributes were presented as being undesirable; these included arrogance, emotionality, panic, and weakness.

The second-largest category (12%) referred to aspects of taking action. Being active, responsive, and proactive were viewed positively, whereas negative connotations applied to behaviors such as delaying, reneging on commitments, and becoming complacent.

The next most common category (8%) was strategic management, which included data elements relating to vision, planning, policy, strategy, and purpose.

The importance of personality traits in describing leaders is consistent with some of Rippin's work, in which she found that “the effectiveness of managers is largely assessed on personality dimensions” (1995, p.190). The nature of the positive and negative evaluations of traits and behaviors is consistent with New Zealand managers’ endorsement of transformational leadership characteristics (Parry & Proctor, 2000).

TABLE 12.3
Categories Emerging From Media Analysis

Organization Management	People Management	Personality	Ability	Image
Taking action (12%)	Motivator	Traits (30%)	Abilities	Impression management
	Communicator	Leader style	Knowledge and Strategic understanding	Conduct
Strategic management (8%)	Relationship builder	Realism (P)	Worthiness	Public image
Development	Team player		Information management	Consistency
Change management	Director		Cultural awareness	Political expediency (P)
Setting ethical standards	Information provider (P)		Conceptual thinking

Note. Categories in italics each contain less than 1% of the total number of text elements. Categories including elements relating only to political leaders are labeled (P).

The Leadership Scales

The GLOBE leadership questionnaire asked respondents to rate various leadership behaviors and traits on a 7-point scale according to the extent they contributed to “outstanding leadership” in New Zealand. Table 12.4 presents the mean score for each of the 21 first-order leadership factors, grouped under their respective second-order factors (in bold). The numbers in parentheses are New Zealand's rankings in comparison with the other 61 countries. As with the cultural scales, countries have been grouped into a number of bands according to their scale score, and the standard error of difference. Countries within the same band on a scale do not differ meaningfully from each other on that scale.

Within-Country Comparison. The six second-order factors in Table 12.4 represent culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories (CLTs) that emerged from analysis of the complete GLOBE data set (Den Hartog et al., 1999; House et al., 1999, 2004). Two of these CLTs (Charismatic/Value Based and Team Oriented) are universally viewed (in all countries) as contributors to effective leadership, whereas the Self-Protective CLT is perceived as an impediment to outstanding leadership. The New Zealand responses are consistent with this macrolevel pattern—average ratings on scales comprising the first two CLTs are all above the scale midpoints, whereas Self-Protective scale ratings are all below the midpoint.

In terms of absolute scale values, New Zealand managers gave three scales average ratings in excess of 6.0 on the 7-point scale: Inspirational, Performance Orientation, and Visionary. A further two scales (Team Integrator and Decisive) were rated 5.5 or higher. At the low end Malevolent, Self-centered, Nonparticipative, and Face Saver all had average ratings lower than 2.4 and were thus seen as seriously inhibiting effective leadership.

At a simple level then, an outstanding leader in New Zealand is seen as a positive, optimistic person who is able to generate confidence, enthusiasm, and excitement among followers, challenging them to exceed expectations in pursuit of future goals. He or she is a good communicator, sharing information to ensure common understanding among followers, and encouraging them to work as an integrated team. The leader must be prepared to make decisions firmly and resolutely, whether based on logic or intuition. This decisiveness needs to be balanced, however, by recognition of the individual abilities of team members (without regard to their status); the leader must not be a micromanager, and must be willing to share the decision making with capable team members. Personal qualities such as irritability, cynicism, conceitedness, or lack of sincerity undermine leadership effectiveness.

Between-Country Comparison. The leadership qualities valued by New Zealanders will now be compared with other countries in the sample. Within the Charismatic/Value Based CLT, New Zealanders placed more emphasis on the Inspirational scale than managers from all but two other countries. This scale picks up items relevant to the leader's optimism, energy, confidence, and motivation, and his or her ability to inspire these characteristics in followers.

New Zealand is also in the highest band for the Visionary, Decisive, Performance Orientation, and Humane scales. The first three of these scales were noted in the discussion of within-country rankings. The importance of Humane is consistent with the finding by Toulson (1990) that New Zealanders in work organizations strongly endorse humanistic work beliefs. Furthermore, the large-scale redundancies occasioned by the economic reforms commenced in 1984 and the share market crash of 1987, may have heightened respondents’ sensitivity to the importance of a humane dimension of leadership.

TABLE 12.4
New Zealand Leadership Styles

Dimensions-Subdimensions	Country	GLOBE		Within-
	Score	Band	(Rank)a	Rankingj
Charismatic/Value Based	5.87	Ci	(34)	-
Visionary	6.23	Ae	(16)	3
Inspirational	6.50	Ae	(3)	1
Self-Sacrificial	4.88	Bd	(39)	10
Integrity	5.49	Ce	(55)	6
Decisive	5.69	Ad	(45)	5
Performance Orientation	6.31	Ad	(13)	2
Team Oriented	5.44	Dg	(57)	-
Collaborative Team Oriented	5.21	Bd	(50)	8
Team Integrator	5.71	Bd	(41)	4
Diplomatic	5.22	Bb	(52)	7
Malevolent (Recoded)	1.83	Ce	(21)	21
Administratively Competent	4.79	Cc	(59)	11
Self-Protective	3.19	Fh	(45)	-
Self-Centered	2.23	Cd	(22)	20
Status-Consciousness	3.56	Cd	(55)	16
Conflict Inducer	3.74	Bc	(40)	15
Face Saver	2.39	Cd	(51)	18
Procedural	3.86	Bd	(34)	13
Participative	5.50	Cf	(23)	-
Autocratic (Recoded)	2.63	C	(31)	17
Nonparticipative (Recoded)	2.38	Bc	(47)	19
Humane	4.78	Ce	(37)	-
Modesty	4.57	Bc	(51)	12
Humane	5.09	Ad	(18)	9
Autonomous	3.77	Bd	(36)	-
Autonomous	3.77	Bc	(36)	14

Note Second-order leadership factors are shown in bold, with the corresponding first-order scales grouped below them (in italics).
^aCountries are grouped into clusters, based on the standard error of difference for each scale. Countries within each cluster do not differ meaningfully from each other on the scale. Cluster A > Cluster B (> C > D > E > F). Each cluster spans 2 standard errors of differences; as the standard error of difference varies across the scales, the number of clusters for each scale also varies (cf. Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe, 2004). ^bGroup span ranges from A to B. ^cGroup span ranges from A to C. dGroup span ranges from A to D. ^eGroup span ranges from A to E. ^fGroup span ranges from A to F. ^gGroup span ranges from A to G. ^hGroup span ranges from A to H. ⁱGroup span ranges from A to I. ^jRank order of GLOBE dimensions within the New Zealand sample.

In contrast, New Zealand managers’ ratings on six of the leadership scales were among the lowest 10 countries. The rating of 4.79 given to Administratively Competent ranks 59th among all the countries, falling into the lowest band. The scale reflects an organized, methodical approach to work, underpinned by skills in coordinating and managing complex administrative systems. The mean is just above the midpoint, suggesting that most managers view this scale positively, but it is valued much less as a contributor to effective leadership than in other countries. As noted by the focus group, Administrative Competence is something required by an average manager, and is not a distinguishing characteristic of an outstanding leader.

The New Zealand sample also gave lower ratings to Integrity than most other countries— an average of 5.49 giving a country ranking of 55th. This scale had the highest standard deviation for the New Zealand leadership scales, suggesting a wide spread of opinion about its relevance to leadership. The focus group saw integrity as essential for a leader (Table 12.2), and Parry and Proctor (2000) found very high levels of perceived integrity in their survey of New Zealand leaders. New Zealand is also consistently ranked among the three or four least corrupt societies in the world (Transparency International, 2002). Perhaps New Zealand managers consider honesty and trustworthiness to be the norm in New Zealand, rather than a special quality useful for distinguishing effective leaders.

Status Consciousness, with a rating of 3.56, also ranked 55th out of the 61 GLOBE countries. The rating is below the midpoint of the scale, indicating that most managers take a negative view of leaders who are conscious of class or status boundaries, and who allow these to influence their actions. The items comprising this scale showed very large differences in country means, ranging from 1.92 (impedes leadership effectiveness) to 5.77 (contributes to leadership effectiveness) (den Hartog et al., 1999). New Zealand's low score is therefore an important, distinctive attribute of leadership in this country.

The final three scales on which New Zealand ranks low compared with other countries are Diplomatic (52nd), Face Saver (51st), and Modesty (51st). The Face Saver characteristics (e.g., being indirect in communication to avoid giving offense) are seen as inhibiting effective leadership more by New Zealanders than by respondents in other countries. The other two dimensions are rated as contributing to effective leadership, but are seen as less important contributors than in other countries.

Factor Analysis of Leadership Scales. Although the 21 GLOBE leadership factors provide a fine-grained picture of effective leadership in New Zealand organizations, people typically use fewer dimensions to make judgments about people. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that can help identify the underlying dimensions (or latent constructs) related to assessments of leader behaviors. This section summarizes the results of a principal axis factor analysis of the New Zealand leadership questionnaire responses.¹ On the basis of parallel analysis (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; O'Connor, 2000) four factors were extracted, and the scale loadings are summarized in Table 12.5.

All of the scales comprising the GLOBE Team Oriented and Charismatic/Value Based CLTs have their largest loadings on the first factor, with the exception of Inspirational. This factor has been labeled “Team Leader.” It reflects a style of leading that encompasses transformational leadership attributes firmly based in a cooperative, high-performing team context. The Team Integrator, Collaborative Team Oriented, and Diplomatic scale items emphasize the importance of working together, resolving individual and intragroup conflict, giving time and energy to help others, being skilled and tactful in interpersonal relations, and being loyal to the group even in times of trouble.

TABLE 12.5
Exploratory Factor Analysis of New Zealand Leader Attributes

Scale	Team Leader	Straight Talker	Self-Promoter	Bureaucrat
Decisive	.78
Team Integrator	.72
Admin Competent	.68
Integrity	.62
Collaborative Team Oriented	.54
Malevolent	-.53	-.41	.45
Visionary	.49
Diplomatic	.47
Performance Oriented	.47
Inspirational		.76
Face Saver		-.61
Status-Conscious		-.42
Conflict Inducer			.72
Autocratic		-.43	.65
Self-Centered		-.43	.59
Modesty			-.55
Nonparticipative			.42
Procedural				.74
Eigenvalue	3.92	2.74	2.71	1.02
Variance explained (%)	18.6	13.0	12.9	4.9

Note. Principal axis factor analysis, extracting four factors with varimax rotation. Only loadings greater than 0.4 are shown. Three scales (Self-Sacrificial, Humane, and Autonomous) failed to reach this level on any factor and do not appear in the table.

The factor also has significant loadings from the Decisive and Performance Oriented scales. These capture elements of effective behaviors—the ability to make decisions firmly and logically, to be determined and persistent, and to strive for increasingly high levels of performance. The team has to be an efficient and effective one, a winning team, not an unstructured or directionless group. The high negative loading of Malevolent indicates the undesirability of attributes such as irritability, dishonesty, egotistical behaviors, cynicism, and uncooperativeness.

The second factor (“Straight Talker”) shows that the New Zealand managers’ implicit model of leadership includes an underlying construct in which inspirational motivation and concern for followers are coupled with a willingness to communicate honestly, candidly, and without undue deference to status. The highest loading scale on this factor is the Inspirational scale. Scale content includes the extent to which leaders display (or generate in their followers) positivity, encouragement, enthusiasm, high morale, confidence, and energy. The Face-Saving and Status-Conscious scales (both components of the GLOBE Self-Protective CLT) have strong loadings in the opposite direction to the Inspirational and Humane scales. An egalitarian approach coupled with clear and direct communication is an important part of the leadership perspective captured by this factor.

The third factor (labeled “Self-Promoter”) includes elements of both the Self-Protective and Participative (negatively loaded) CLT dimensions. It captures a self-centered, directive leadership style. A strong loading from Autocratic captures both leadership style (bossy, domineering, dictatorial, and intolerant of questioning) and belief in elitism. The other four scales loading positively on this factor are Conflict Inducer, Nonparticipative, Self-Centered, and Autonomous. These reflect attributes such as an emphasis on one's own interests rather than the groups, an insistence on making decisions personally, a tendency to conceal information from the group, and a preference for independence. Finally, the high negative loading of Modesty reflects New Zealanders’ dislike of boasting, and the value placed on a self-effacing manner.

The fourth factor (“Bureaucrat”) differs markedly from the GLOBE second-order factors. It highlights a unique aspect of the way in which New Zealand managers evaluate their leaders. The factor is dominated by the Procedural scale, which includes items relating to formality, caution, maintaining a habitual routine, and a preference for following established rules. Reliance on formal rules goes against the New Zealand preference for managing the team rather than the process, and has been identified as a weakness in many New Zealand managers (see Parry & Proctor, 2000).

The contribution of the four factors to perceptions of effective leadership can be assessed. The leadership scales are based on variables rated from 1 (“greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader”) to 7 (“contributes greatly to a person being an outstanding leader”). By taking the average score of each of the leadership scales loading on each factor, we can assess the extent to which a high factor score is positively or negatively associated with leadership.

On this basis, the cluster of leadership scales represented by the Team Leader factor are the ones most highly valued in New Zealand leaders, with an average rating of 5.65. This factor also accounts for the largest amount of variance in the model (18.6%). The “Straight Talker” factor has an average of 5.41, and accounts for 13% of variance. This cluster of attributes is therefore highly valued, and an important component of the New Zealand leadership model. The Self-Promoter factor (accounting for 12.9% of variance) captures behaviors that detract from effective leadership, with an average rating of 3.03; the Autocratic, Self-centered, and Nonparticipative scales in particular are viewed as inimical to good leadership. Finally, behaviors associated with the Bureaucrat factor (3.86) detract from perceptions of effective leadership, but account for only 4.9% of variance.

The New Zealand factor structure replicates the GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based and Team Oriented CLTs, although these factors emerge as one in the New Zealand sample. The remaining New Zealand factors differ from the GLOBE factor structure, and thus provide insights into unique aspects of the New Zealand leadership model. The factor structure highlights the importance of honest, candid communication with people, transcending status or class boundaries (Straight Talker). It also underscores the importance of a leader being seen to actively engage with his or her team, to encourage participation, to place the team and its goals ahead of personal ambition, and to maintain an appropriate level of humility (Self-Promoter). Finally, the negative connotations of the Bureaucrat factor are consistent with the pragmatic, problem-solving attitude discussed in the section on culture.

Many of the people honored by being featured on New Zealand banknotes epitomize these qualities—in particular, the willingness to forego self-interest and to make personal sacrifices in the interest of a goal or vision, often coupled with a challenge to existing privilege or control structures. Kate Sheppard was the most prominent leader of the campaign for universal suffrage in New Zealand at the end of the 19th century; Sir Apirana Ngata led the revival of Maori people and culture in the early 20th century; Ernest Rutherford is internationally recognized as the “father of the atom”; and Sir Edmund Hillary was the first person to climb Mt Everest, and to drive overland to the South Pole.

Discussion

The findings of the qualitative and quantitative analyses provide a consistent picture of the leadership behaviors valued most highly by New Zealand managers. High levels of performance must be balanced by a somewhat modest, self-deprecating attitude. Involvement of team members using an egalitarian, participative style is expected, together with flexibility in the application of rules and processes. The leader must enthuse and inspire followers, but this is best done through personal commitment, perseverance, and example, rather than by exhortation or flummery.

The cultural emphasis on low In-Group Collectivism, high Institutional Collectivism, low Power Distance, and low Assertiveness distinguish New Zealand from most other GLOBE countries. The value placed on collectivism at the work group and societal level contrasts markedly with the individualist values apparent in the in-group and family context. The managers’ view of work group pride seems linked more to utilitarian considerations than to an innate need for affiliation. Performance is paramount. In line with the pioneering cultural strand, people are considered to determine their own fortune; they stand or fall on their ability to achieve, whether as individuals or as contributors to a wider group enterprise.

New Zealanders don't look favorably on rules, detailed administrative procedures, or being controlled by micromanaging bureaucrats. On the other hand, the cultural values evidence a high need to reduce uncertainty, to increase the level of stability and predictability. This is achieved more by conformity, by a desire to avoid being different, than by subordination to a set of externally imposed or class-based “rules.” Effective leadership in New Zealand is therefore likely to require a “clan control” rather than “bureaucratic control” approach to controlling people and channeling their efforts (Bartol & Martin, 1998).

Though New Zealanders dislike autocratic leaders, they also spurn leaders who pull their punches, who aren't prepared to “call a spade a spade.” There is a potential dissonance between this avoidance of the autocrat, and the desire for a leader who can reduce uncertainty, provide a sense of security, and instill confidence. Performance is valued highly, and accolades are given to those who achieve at the highest level (as long as they don't act as though their achievements make them better than others). New Zealanders want to follow a leader who can succeed, who can perform at an exceptional level, and who gives hope that followers can share in this success. They want to be told what to do by a successful (albeit self-effacing) leader, not by a bureaucrat with a policy manual.

A strong leader can reduce uncertainty, and make people feel they are on the winning team. Perhaps this accounts for what Pearson has called New Zealanders’ “lurking respect for the dictator” (Pearson, 1974), the willingness to allow a leader to be dictatorial if he or she achieves results, and if those results benefit the dominant group. Dictators usually have a passion, they are driven to control people to an end, and they are enthusiastic about their goals. At various times in the past New Zealand has willingly endorsed authoritarian Prime Ministers (most recently, Sir Robert Muldoon). The media study identified emotionality, panic, and weakness as negative characteristics—the country's pioneering background seems to make a strong autocrat preferable to a sensitive facilitator.

Traditional attributes are still valued, such as strength of character, resolve, determination, and commitment. Increasing importance is being placed on the ability to inspire and enthuse staff, on Future Orientation, and on development and communication of a compelling vision. The high importance placed on having a leader with vision reflects the overall concern at the low level of Future Orientation in society. Leaders are valued for demonstrating foresight, planning ahead, and taking actions in consideration of future goals, perhaps in compensation for the low emphasis given to these behaviors by society as a whole.

There is an important aspect of our cultural identity that is not adequately captured by the GLOBE questionnaire. The rural archetype encompasses a practical, down-to-earth approach to problem solving, colored by “Kiwi ingenuity.” The GLOBE items, by focusing on generic leadership behaviors, do not address technical skills, yet this seems to be an area that may further distinguish New Zealand leaders from their international counterparts. Rippin (1995) found that technical skills were an important contributor to judgments about senior managers’ perceived levels of overall effectiveness. Her finding contrasts with similar overseas studies, and she speculates that the value placed on technical skills may be a function of the New Zealand “colonial spirit” (p.133), requiring managers to demonstrate greater versatility than is the case in other countries.

This summary has implications for overseas managers who come to New Zealand to assume leadership roles. The large individual differences that exist within cultures make it hard to be definitive about the likely experiences of expatriate or immigrant managers in New Zealand. Furthermore, such managers will find an increasingly multicultural workforce—a typical New Zealand manufacturer in the Auckland region might comprise 20% New Zealand European, 15% Maori, 15% Samoan, 10% Cook Islanders, 10% Tongans, 10% Chinese, 10% Malaysian, 5% Korean, and 5% Indian (Thomas, Ravlin, & Barry, 2000).

However, managers from cultures that differ markedly from the values espoused by New Zealand managers are likely to experience greater dissonance than those from similar cultures. Comparison of GLOBE values for other countries is a useful starting point, and the cluster analysis by Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman (2002) gives an overview of broad cultural similarities and differences. Even within the same cluster, however, important differences exist. Australia, the United States, and South Africa (White sample) all belong (with New Zealand) to the Anglo cluster, but managers from all of these countries scored significantly higher on Assertiveness than did New Zealand managers.

Australians, Americans, and South Africans who use levels of assertive behavior consistent with norms in their home countries are likely to be viewed negatively in New Zealand. Their actions may be considered “pushy,” arrogant, or domineering, resulting in lowered cooperation and respect from locals.

Managers from cultures that are high on Power Distance or status consciousness must be prepared for greater levels of informality in New Zealand. The apparent lack of deference shown by New Zealanders is driven by egalitarian values, and should not be interpreted as lack of respect. Similarly, the new leader has to be careful in choosing how to establish credibility. Personal statements about his or her experience and expertise may be seen as “skiting,” as self-promotion inconsistent with the value placed on humility and modesty. Understated, objective descriptions of experience or achievements, giving acknowledgment to the contributions of others, are less likely to engender skepticism.

Gaining the acceptance of followers is critical for leaders in New Zealand, as the low level of Power Distance makes it difficult for leaders to maintain their position based only on legitimate authority. Acceptance requires openness, integrity, straightforward communication, and willingness to subordinate personal ego for the good of the group.

New Zealanders’ high level of Institutional Collectivism is consistent with their strong sense of national pride (Smith & Jarkko, 2001). It is important that expatriate managers recognize this, and minimize actions that belittle or undermine this sense of unique identity. Unthinking application of international HR policies, value statements, diversity programs, and similar initiatives can have unintended effects (cynicism, lowered trust, resentment) unless the local context and values are taken into account (Jones et al., 2000).

Finally, the egalitarianism that pervades New Zealand culture creates challenges for expatriates seeking to recognize and reward individual performance. The sense of “fair play” dictates that individuals are acknowledged and rewarded for their contribution, whereas the emphasis on teamwork and egalitarianism creates strong pressure for team-based rewards. The composition of work teams, levels of interdependence, and opportunity for individual contribution need to be carefully balanced against these values of egalitarianism and team loyalty.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The use of GLOBE quantitative and qualitative tools to explore cultural values and preferred leadership behaviors provides a strong foundation for international comparisons. However, by collecting quantitative data from only three industries, care must be taken when generalizing results within New Zealand. The sample size (184) prevents more fine-grained analysis. Future research into the differences in values and implicit leadership models of men and women, of different ethnic groups in New Zealand, as a function of age, or of geographic location will contribute to our understanding of effective leadership in organizations.

Data collection took place following one of the most significant periods of economic and social restructuring in New Zealand's history. As noted in several places during this chapter, it is possible that some responses may have been influenced by reaction to these events. Future studies using the GLOBE scales will be needed in order to clarify the stability of the pattern identified.

5.  CONCLUSION

This chapter began with a quotation from John Mulgan, a New Zealand writer and diplomat who studied and worked in England during the 1930s. He described the qualities that characterized New Zealand soldiers he met during the desert campaign of World War II. We have seen how some of these attributes closely fit the culturally endorsed model of outstanding leadership in New Zealand. This implicit model combines inspirational enthusiasm (“sunshine”), low assertiveness, pragmatism, and perseverance. Low Power Distance and the strength of egalitarian beliefs mandate a style of leadership that is participative, grounded in the team, and provides the opportunity for shared success.

To the extent that leadership is “the process of being perceived by others as a leader” (Lord & Maher, 1991, p. 11) then New Zealand leaders must conform to the cultural expectations of their followers. New Zealand's cultural identity, however, has been determined in part by the actions of leaders (in military, cultural, sporting, political, and commercial spheres). Culture can therefore be viewed both as a constraint on what is acceptable and as a supporting structure amenable to further development as New Zealanders build and extend their concept of effective leadership. Another New Zealand writer, Katherine Mansfield (1960, p. 127), described New Zealand as “a little land with no history (Making its own history, slowly and clumsily. Piecing together this and that, finding the pattern, solving the problem, Like a child with a box of bricks).”

New Zealand leaders have found patterns and solved problems in ways that both reflect and help to define “Kiwi culture.” Though many of the building blocks for New Zealand's leadership style can be found in other countries, the overall pattern is unique. The problems to be solved will continue to change, and leaders will need to continue finding new bricks to extend the pattern. The GLOBE study provides a snapshot of existing cultural themes and leadership styles, and a basis from which to explore future evolution of Kiwi leadership as New Zealand continues to develop and refine its sense of identity and place in the world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This chapter was written while I was in the Commerce Division of Lincoln University, New Zealand. Peter Cosgriff, Mark Fearing, and Dan Sauers contributed to the early planning and data-gathering stages of GLOBE in New Zealand and their contribution is gratefully acknowledged. I also thank Kerr Inkson, Jagdeep Chhokar, Ken Parry, Peter Cammock, and Ramzi Addison for their constructive and thoughtful comments on a draft.

REFERENCES

Ah Chong, L. M., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 275–293.

Ansley, B. (2000, March 25). Human values. Listener, 16–19.

Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administrative Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.

Belich, J. (2001). Paradise reforged : A history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000. Auckland, New Zealand: Allen Lane Penguin Press.

Booth, P. (1993). Edmund Hillary: The life of a legend. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Bridges, J., & Downs, D. (2000). No. 8 wire: The best of Kiwi ingenuity. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.

Briggs, A. (1965). The welfare state in historical perspective. In M. Zald (Ed.), Social welfare institutions (pp. 25–45). New York: Wiley.

Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. R. (1995). Developing a lay model of managerial effectiveness: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 443–476.

Campbell-Hunt, C., & Corbett, L. (1996). A season of excellence? An overview of New Zealand enterprise in the Nineties (Research Monograph No. 65). Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Campbell-Hunt, C., Harper, D., & Hamilton, R. (1993). Islands of excellence? A study of management in New Zealand (Research Monograph No. 59). Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Carter, I., & Perry, N. (1987). Rembrandt in gumboots: Rural imagery in New Zealand television advertisements. In J. Phillips (Ed.), Te Whenua Te Iwi—The land and the people. Wellington, New Zealand: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press.

Child, Youth and Family. (1999). Strengthening families: Report on cross-sectoral outcome measures and targets. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Crocombe, G., Enright, M., & Porter, M. (1991). Upgrading New Zealand's competitive advantage. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Dalziel, P. (2002). New Zealand's economic reforms: An assessment. Review of Political Economy, 14(1), 31–46.

Davin, D. (1984, November). Cassino casualty. Islands, 1 New Series.

Deeks, J., Parker, J., & Ryan, R. (1994). Labour and employment relations in New Zealand (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul.

den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Kennedy, J. C., et al. (1999). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256.

Department of Statistics. (1990). New Zealand Official Yearbook (94th ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Easton, B. (2000, March 25). Value added. Listener, pp. 20–21.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

Fairburn, M. (1989). The ideal society and its enemies: The foundations of modern New Zealand society 1850–1900. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

Fearing, M., Heyward, J., Kennedy, J. C., & O'Sullivan, D. (1995). The GLOBE study of management and leadership in New Zealand. Unpublished manuscript, Commerce Division, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Feather, N. T. (1993). The rise and fall of political leaders: Attributions, deservingness, personality and affect. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 61–68.

Feather, N. T. (1994a). Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and research concerning tall poppies. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1–73). New York: Academic Press.

Feather, N. T. (1994b). Values and national identification: Australian evidence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 35–40.

Frater, P., Stuart, G., Rose, D., & Andrews, G. (1995). The New Zealand innovation environment. Wellington, New Zealand: Business and Economic Research Ltd.

Frederick, H. H., & Carswell, P. J. (2001). Global entrepreneurship monitor New Zealand 2001. Auckland: New Zealand Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (UNITEC).

Gendall, P., Robbie, P., Patchett, S., & Bright, N. (2000). Social equality in New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Department of Marketing, Massey University, International Social Survey Programme.

Geraets, J. (1984). An interior landscape: Charles Brasch's “Indirections” and “The Universal Dance.” Islands, 1 New Series(1), 71–84.

Gidlow, R., Perkins, H., Cushman, G., & Simpson, C. (1994). Leisure and recreation. In P. Spoonley, D. Pearson, & I. Shirley (Eds.), New Zealand society: A sociological introduction (2nd ed., pp. 253–267). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Godfrey, K., & Kennedy, J. C. (1998). Media portrayal of leadership in New Zealand: A GLOBE study. Unpublished Manuscript, Commerce Division, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Gold, H., & Webster, A. (1990). New Zealand values today. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Alpha.

Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.

Hamilton, R. T., Dakin, S. R., & Loney, R. P. (1992). Economic deregulation and general managers: New Zealand's experience. Personnel Review, 21(7), 14–23.

Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, V. Gupta, & GLOBE Associates (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Sipe, M. T. (2004). Rationale for GLOBE statistical analyses: Societal rankings and test of hypotheses. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 219–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hansen, D. (1968). Social institutions. In A. McLeod (Ed.), The pattern of New Zealand culture (pp. 49–67). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harris, P. (1996). The changes banks face. Wellington, New Zealand: The Finance Sector Union (FinSec).

Hines, G. (1973). The New Zealand manager. Wellington, New Zealand: Hicks, Smith & Sons Ltd.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holm, M. (1994, November 5). Secrets for success. Listener, pp. 16–24.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hughes, T. (2001). Statement by the New Zealand Deputy Permanent Representative, Friday 10 November 2000. Paper presented at the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee), United Nations, New York.

Hyde, T. (1991, September). How they sold Telecom, why they sold Telecom. Metro, pp. 54–69.

IMD International. (2000). The world competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Institute for Management Development.

Inkson, J. H. K., & Henshall, B. (1990). Transformational leadership and management development. In P. Boxall (Ed.), Function in search of a future: Perspectives on contemporary human resource management in New Zealand (pp. 157–171). Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul.

Inkson, J. H. K., Henshall, B., Marsh, N., & Ellis, G. (1986). Theory K: The key to excellence in New Zealand management. Auckland, New Zealand: David Bateman Ltd.

Irving, D., & Inkson, J. H. K. (1998). It must be Wattie's: From Kiwi icon to global player. Auckland, New Zealand: David Bateman.

Jones, D., Pringle, J., & Shepherd, D. (2000). “Managing diversity” meets Aotearoa/New Zealand. Personnel Review, 29(3), 364–380.

Knuckey, S., Leung-Wai, J., & Meskill, M. (1999). Gearing up: A study of best manufacturing practice in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Commerce.

Lattimore, R. G. (1994). Assessing the international competitiveness of the New Zealand food sector. In M. Bredahl, P. Abbott, & M. Reed (Eds.), Competitiveness in international food markets. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Lattimore, R. G. (1997). Deregulation: The New Zealand food industry. In T. Wallace & W. Schroder (Eds.), Government and the food industry: Economic and political effects of conflict and cooperation. Boston: Kluwer.

Lealand, G. (1988). A foreign egg in our nest? American popular culture in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

Ledingham, P. (1995). The review of bank supervision arrangements in New Zealand: The main elements of the debate. Reserve Bank Bulletin (RBNZ), 58(3), 163–171.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Love, P. (1996, September 14). Changing times bring upheaval for financiers. The Evening Post, p. 15.

Mansfield, K. (1960). To Stanislaw Wyspianski. In A. Curnow (Ed.), The Penguin book of New Zealand Verse (pp. 127–128). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

McKinlay, P. (2000, June). Social responsibility—business challenge. Paper presented at the Redesigning Resources Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

McLauchlan, G., & Morgan, J. (1976). The passionless people. Auckland: Cassell New Zealand.

Ministry of Defense. (2001). Report of the Ministry of Defense for the year ended 30 June 2001. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Ministry of Youth Affairs. (1998). Options for enhancing the effectiveness of government policy on young people's sexual and reproductive health. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Youth Affairs Te Tari Taiohi.

Ministry of Youth Affairs. (2002). Building resilience: Briefing to the incoming minister. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Youth Affairs Te Tari Taiohi.

Mulgan, J. (1984). Report on experience. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Naipaul, V. (1980). The return of Eva Peron with the killings in Trinidad. London: Andre Deutsch.

New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs. (1996). The dictionary of New Zealand biography 1901–1920 (Vol. 3). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

New Zealand Government. (2001). Government defense statement: A modern, sustainable defense force matched to New Zealand's needs. Wellington: Author.

O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402.

Office of Treaty Settlements. (2001). Quarterly report to June 2001. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of Treaty Settlements Te Tari Whakatau Take e pa ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ogilvie, G. (1973). The riddle of Richard Pearse. Wellington, New Zealand: AH & AW Reed.

One-third of bank branches closed. (1999, May 5). The Press, p. 29.

O'Reilly, T., & Wood, D. (1991). Biculturalism and the public sector. In J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot, & P. Walsh (Eds.), Reshaping the state: New Zealand's bureaucratic revolution (pp. 329–342). Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Parry, K. W., & Proctor, S. B. (2000). The New Zealand Leadership Survey, 1999. Wellington, New Zealand: Centre for the Study of Leadership, Victoria University.

Pearson, B. (1974). Fretful sleepers and other essays. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Peel, S., & Inkson, J. H. K. (2000). Economic deregulation and psychological contracts: The New Zealand experience. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 195–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pfeifer, D. (2005). Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand: Maori and Pakeha perceptions of outstanding leadership. Unpublished Master of Management thesis, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Pfeifer, D., & Love, M. (2004). Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand: A cross-cultural study. PRISM, 2. Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/number_2_1.html

Phillips, J. (1989). War and national identity. In D. Novitz & B. Willmott (Eds.), Culture and identity in New Zealand (pp. 91–109). Wellington, New Zealand: GP Books.

Rippin, S. (1995). The competencies used to assess the effectiveness of New Zealand managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington: New Zealand.

Rotherham, F. (1998, September 2). Is the Kiwi corporate culture wrecking our family life? The Independent.

Savage, J. (1999). Savings in New Zealand (No. 99/1). Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Retirement Commissioner.

Sinclair, K. (1969). A History of New Zealand (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Singer, M. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological Reports, 56, 816–818.

Smith, T. W., & Jarkko, L. (2001). National pride in cross-national perspective. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Spector, P., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O'Driscoll, M. P., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., et al. (2001). Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 815–832.

Statistics New Zealand. (1995). Facts NZ (2nd ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Statistics New Zealand. (1997). New Zealand official year book 1997. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Print.

Statistics New Zealand. (1999). New Zealand official yearbook on the Web 1999. Retrieved April 26, 2000, from http://www.stats.govt.nz

Statistics New Zealand. (2001). Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/quickfacts/people/default.htm

Statistics New Zealand. (2002). New Zealand official year book 2002. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Print.

Stephens, R. J., Frater, P. R., & Waldegrave, C. (2000). Below the line: An analysis of income poverty in New Zealand, 1984–1998. Wellington, New Zealand: Graduate School of Business and Government Management, Victoria University of Wellington.

Stewart, V. (1981). Business applications of repertory grid. London: McGraw-Hill.

Tapsell, S. (1997, October). Is Maori management different? Management, 44, 46–50.

Telecom Corporation of New Zealand. (1993). The Telecom turnaround: The deregulation of the telecommunications industry. Wellington: Author.

Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C., & Barry, D. (2000). Creating effective multicultural teams. Auckland University Business Review, 2(1), 11–24.

Toulson, P. K. (1990). Perceptions, practices, and productivity: An assessment of personnel management in New Zealand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Transparency International. (2002). Corruptions Perceptions Index 2002. Retrieved January 27, 2003, from http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html

Ware, A., & Dewes, K. (2000, September). Nuclear weapons-free zones: From symbolic gesture to statutory ban: The Aotearoa-New Zealand experience. Paper presented at the Nuclear Weapons-Free Zones: Crucial Steps Towards a Nuclear-Free World, Uppsala, Sweden.

Watkins, T. (2003, January 9). Big pay rises replace bonus system. The Dominion Post.

Watson, L. (1994). The “tall poppy” myth. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from soc.culture.new-zealand archives in http://groups.google.co.nz

Wevers & Company. (1994). The Index of Human Resource Management Performance. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Wevers International Ltd/Centre for Corporate Strategy. (1996). New Zealand Index of Human Resource Management & Organisational Effectiveness. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Management.

Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 264–269.

Yergin, D., & Stanislaw, J. (1998). The commanding heights: The battle between government and the marketplace that is remaking the modern world. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Appendix A

Background Information on the
Food-Processing, Finance, and
Telecommunications Industries

In order to improve comparability among the various countries of the GLOBE study, the research was carried out in three selected industries—food processing, financial services, and telecommunications. This section provides brief background material on each sector in New Zealand.

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

New Zealand, as a temperate country with low population density, has a long history as an agricultural producer and exporter. Its ability to attain high levels of self-sufficiency in food products led to an early emphasis on exporting (Lattimore, 1994). In the late 19th century, export activities were oriented largely toward supplying the British market, and many food-processing companies (especially in the meat sector) were established with British capital (Lattimore, 1997). Today, New Zealand exports of sheep meat account for 54% of the world export trade, and the country is one of the top five dairy exporters in the world (Statistics New Zealand, 1999). New Zealand export industries are dominated by companies in the food and beverage sector (Crocombe, Enright, & Porter, 1991) and, in 1996, food products made up 38.5% of the total value of New Zealand's exports (Statistics New Zealand, 1997).

Acting in the role of “Britain's Farm,” New Zealand supplied bulk commodities (such as sheep meat and butter), with little in the way of added-value processing. The guaranteed market (and good returns) meant there was little pressure to develop greater sophistication in food processing, or to enter more competitive markets. At the same time, domestically oriented food-processing industries (such as wheat, bakery, and cereal products) were protected from international competition by a system of state import monopolies, consumer restrictions, and phytosanitary restrictions (Lattimore, 1997).

Britain's entry into the European Common Market during the 1970s meant the loss of New Zealand's largest market for agricultural products and resulted in increased exports to new trading partners, particularly in Asia. Firms have had to develop greater awareness of diverse customer requirements, and make technological innovations to serve them effectively, while adjusting to significantly higher levels of international competition.

Agriculture was one of the first sectors to lose government protection and support during the economic deregulation program that began in 1984. New Zealand is now unique among developed countries in that farmers receive no subsidies from government while having to compete with subsidized production from other producing countries (Statistics New Zealand, 1999).

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY

The banking and financial services sector in New Zealand is now highly competitive but it hasn't always been that way. Until the mid-1980s, only four commercial banks operated in the country, and these were subject to governmental controls over their interest rates, investments, and lending portfolios. Other organizations (such as savings banks, building societies, and finance companies) offered a more limited range of banking services, and were also subject to tight government control. Strong restrictions on foreign-exchange transactions effectively protected New Zealand banks from overseas competition, and the lack of any effective competition in the sector meant that little innovation occurred. Ledingham (1995, p. 163) has characterized the sector at this time as being “boringly stable.”

The large commercial banks developed multileveled hierarchies and mechanistic cultures appropriate for the stable and predictable environment. They were cautious and conservative, with cultures ill-suited to rapid or radical change (Harris, 1996). During the 1970s and 1980s, competition developed outside the banking sector, with finance companies and other organizations beginning to capture an increasing share of the deposits and lending markets. These institutions lobbied for access to other activities (e.g., foreign-exchange dealing) that government regulations excluded them from. The distinction between banks and nonbanks began to diminish and, in 1984–1985, the government carried out major reforms of the financial sector. Foreign-exchange and interest rate controls were removed, and, in 1986, new banks were allowed to set up in New Zealand. A total of 21 new banks were approved. The government sold the banks that it controlled (1989–1992) and withdrew its explicit guarantee of deposits at trustee savings banks (1988).

During this time banks also had to cope with major changes in technology. The extensive introduction of electronic payments systems, development of new products, and exposure to international innovations placed pressure on managers whose past experience was in a more stable and predictable world.

During the 1990s, the financial sector continued to evolve as a result of pressures to increase cost efficiencies and improve customer service. Large mergers resulted in closure of branches, and staff redundancies, although accelerating uptake of telephone banking, ATMs (automatic teller machines), and other technology, contributed to reduced staffing levels. More than one third of New Zealand's bank branches were closed between 1993 and 1998, with staffing being reduced by 11%. The number of ATMs increased by over 30% in the same period (Harris, 1996; Love, 1996; “One-third of bank branches closed,” 1999).

The New Zealand finance sector is now dominated by overseas-owned companies. Three of the five major banks are owned by Australian parent companies, one operates as a branch of an Australian bank, and the other has a British parent.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Prior to April 1, 1987, all telecommunications services, both domestic and international, were provided by the state-controlled New Zealand Post Office. The Post Office's statutory monopoly also extended to the provision of telecommunications equipment, such as domestic telephones and commercial switchboards. In the mid-1980s, New Zealand experienced rapid growth in the demand for telecommunication services, and the national network was severely overloaded. At times it was impossible to get a call through from New Zealand's largest city, Auckland, to the capital, Wellington. Long delays in the provision of telephone services were common, with customers having to wait 6 to 8 weeks for a telephone to be installed (Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, 1993).

In 1986, the Labour government, as part of its economic restructuring programme, split the Post Office into three separate state-owned enterprises. Telecom Corporation assumed responsibility for the telecommunications role, and began operating on April 1, 1987. Telecom's first priority was to restructure the company in preparation for deregulation and eventual competition. The centralized bureaucracy was replaced with a decentralized organization structure and Telecom invested in programs aimed at improving service quality, network reliability, personnel productivity, and profitability. Cost-cutting programs were put into place, a substantial number of jobs were made redundant, and outdated systems were replaced with computerized alternatives (Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, 1993).

In 1990, Telecom Corporation was privatized through sale to a consortium headed by two

American telecommunications companies, Ameritech and Bell Atlantic, for over U.S.$2.5 billion. This was the sixth-biggest deal in the world in 1990 and, until recently, the biggest deal in New Zealand history (Hyde, 1991).

Deregulation allowed new competitors into the market, with companies such as Clear Communications, BellSouth, Telstra, and Vodafone seeking to compete in different parts of the domestic, international, and mobile markets. International companies (including Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson) began selling telecommunications equipment, and New Zealand companies (such as Ben Rumble) entered the retail equipment sales and servicing sector.

In summary, all three of the industries surveyed in this part of the GLOBE project have experienced significant pressures to increase effectiveness and efficiency, as they operate in an environment characterized by increasing competition, greater demands for technology investment, and reduced governmental support and protection.

_______________

¹The GLOBE scales were designed to measure organizational- or societal-level variability (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). The scales were not intended to meaningfully differentiate among individuals within a particular society. However, even though the scales were not constructed to provide such information, in some cases it is interesting to assess whether similar factors differentiate individuals within a society. Country-specific factor analysis is intended as an exploration of the themes captured by GLOBE in a new domain, that is, individual differences within a society. It should be noted that, because of the within-society restriction of the GLOBE scales true-score variability (which was based on between-society differences), the loadings of the GLOBE scale's items on within-society factors should be lower than between societies (cf. Hanges & Dickson, 2004). Furthermore, one should not interpret the within-society factor analyses as replications of the GLOBE factor structure. And the absence of a GLOBE factor within a society should not be automatically interpreted as the factor being irrelevant to the people in that country. Rather, a factor may fail to emerge within a society even when that theme is extremely critical because there was no variability in how the individuals from a single society rated the items (e.g., they all rated the items a 7). Factor analysis requires variability and so a factor could fail the emerge because it is extremely critical or completely irrelevant to the people within a society.