14

Leadership in the United States of America:
The Leader as Cultural Hero

Michael H. Hoppe
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina

Rabi S. Bhagat
The University of Memphis

The United States is a large country, with more than 3.6 million square miles (fourth after Russia, Canada, and China) and around 300 million inhabitants (third most populous after China and India, but less than 5% of the total world population). Its vastness, natural beauty, and big cities attract visitors from around the world. Its economic strength is still unrivaled and its per capita gross national product (GNP) is higher than that of any other major country in the world. It is celebrated for its technological advances and admired or loathed for its political and military might. Its research and development (R&D) achievements are legend (ca. 4 out of 10 of all the Nobel prizes awarded since its inception were awarded to American researchers) and its legal and political institutions serve as models for old and new societies elsewhere.

Moreover, its cultural, economic, and military imprint is felt throughout the world. Its jazz, ragtime, and popular music, films, TV, videos, books, newspapers, and magazines can be found almost everywhere. Economically, Coca-Cola, IBM, Levi's Jeans, Nike sneakers, and many other products of its consumer culture are omnipresent. Militarily, it recently made its mark in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its influence is mostly welcomed, but often also strongly resisted.

Of course, these are only the immediately noticeable manifestations of U.S. society. With a closer look and over time, it reveals itself as an immensely varied and complex society— historically, politically, and culturally—with many contradictions and partially fulfilled aspirations. Also, nobody can yet tell for sure what the long-term domestic and foreign policy ramifications of the terror attack of September 11, 2001, will be.

A closer look also helps surface the assumptions, values, and beliefs that fuel and reinforce U.S. culture's thoughts and actions and its resulting images of the good society and the good and successful life. Similarly, it enables the cultural assumptions, preferences, and beliefs to emerge that shape its people's perceptions of the ideal organization, career, and leadership. These latter, implicitly and explicitly culturally endorsed, perceptions of leadership are the focus of this chapter.

In particular, this chapter will highlight the uniquely American images, models, and practices of effective leadership and the underlying cultural orientations that help explain them— based on new quantitative and qualitative GLOBE data and existing findings from multiple sources. For the purpose of this chapter, culture is understood as the “internalized patterns of thinking and behaving that are believed to be ‘natural ’—simply the way things are” (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p. x.). The definition of the term leadership initially follows the one used by the GLOBE study, that is, “people in your organization or industry who are exceptionally skilled at motivating, influencing, or enabling you, others, or groups to contribute to the success of the organization or task.” Later in the chapter, we discuss additional ways of thinking of and enacting leadership.

As the biographical sketches at the beginning of the volume make apparent, the two authors originally are from Germany and continental India, respectively. However, both authors feel that they know the United States and its special brand of leadership rather well, given their nearly 60 years of combined experience in living, working, and traveling across the United States. Equally, the authors feel that they are well aware of the aspirations, hopes, fears, and accomplishments of the American people.

The chapter looks at U.S. leadership through five distinct lenses. First, we provide a brief historical overview and identify recurrent themes and tensions in U.S. society to offer a useful background for the discussion. We then paint a brief cultural portrait of the effective leader, using existing sources, followed by summary descriptions of well-known and admired past and current leaders. Next, we look briefly at leadership research in the United States to distill some pertinent old and new preoccupations and issues that will shape leadership theory and practice for years to come. Finally, through our fifth lens, we present and interpret the quantitative and qualitative U.S. results of the GLOBE study, provide some guidance to men and women from other countries who find themselves working with U.S. managers, briefly address the limitations of the data, and offer some suggestions for future leadership research.

It may be helpful to point out from the outset that our chapter cannot, and is not designed, to do full justice to the immense body of knowledge and practice that is U.S. leadership. We are selective by mainly concentrating on cultural roots and expressions of leadership in U.S. society. Equally important, we try to capture mainstream, largely corporate, leadership in America. The rationale for this is quite straightforward. Most of the data, including those of GLOBE, are from that part of society. Furthermore, in today's increasingly “global” business environment, that “face” of U.S. leadership is most visible, as it is exported through research and daily business interactions. However, this limited focus in no way should diminish the tremendous richness of other leadership models and approaches in U.S. culture that deserve to be studied in their own right.

1.  THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT OF U.S. LEADERSHIP THOUGHT AND PRACTICE

Stages and Themes in U.S. History

No discussion of leadership in the United States can be fully understood without, even if ever so briefly, paying attention to the historical, political, economic, and social context from which it emerged (Hofstede, 1980). As a social construct (Berger & Luckmann, 1967), leadership is deeply embedded in that context. Thus, a very condensed version of major stages in the development of the U.S. society and its recurrent themes and struggles is offered first.

The history of the United States can be described in the following stages (Johnson, 1997; see also World Book Encyclopedia, 1981):

Colonial America (1580–1750) saw the development of a group of independent settlements and small-scale enterprises, initially made up of those escaping religious intolerance or seeking adventure and/or riches. These settlements and small businesses formed into groups for protection that were primarily concerned with producing goods, which were then sent to the “mother country,” England, France, or Spain. The majority of the people would have considered themselves to be members of their home countries, rather than of the new country.

Revolutionary America (1750–1815) not only witnessed the fight for independence from England, but the emergence of a strong sense of a uniquely American culture. Freedom from oppression, relying on and fighting for each other, a deep belief in government by the people, and leading simple but productive lives evolved as some of its cornerstones. Furthermore, there was an abiding conviction of the necessity for a “system of checks and balances” that would ensure that no one group or governmental branch could hold sway for an extended period in violation of the rights of others. The U.S. Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1791) became the most fundamental expressions of those yearnings. George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson are examples of individual leaders of lasting recognition for their courage, vision, dedication, sense of justice, and breadth of intellect and experience. Their leadership was rooted in their eastern, well-to-do, privileged heritage and their hands-on experience with managing their own affairs.

Democratic America (1815–1850) is the time of Andrew Jackson and the flood of immigrants that settled and developed the West and the rest of the country. It is the time when frontier spirit, hard work, and a sense of great individual independence shaped the collective consciousness. A belief in a “manifest destiny,” that is, the control of all of North America, took hold and the idea of the “common man” emerged, who needed to be protected from the monopoly of government and the rich (Andrew Jackson himself came from a background of very modest means). The women's rights and abolitionist movements, fending for equality of men and women, Black and White, developed strength and the increasing importance of, for instance, railroads, steamboats, and the cotton gin contributed to tremendous economic growth.

Civil War America (1850–1870) was a time when brother fought brother and when North and South inflicted wounds to each other that last until today. Yet, it also saw Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation (urging that all slaves were to be set free). Lincoln's name continues to be listed among the great leaders of U.S. history for his integrity, persistence, and courage against all odds, humility, and standing up for his beliefs.

Industrial America (1870–1912) saw the development of “Big Business,” for example, mass production and tremendous wealth in steel (Andrew Carnegie), railroads (Cornelius Vanderbilt II), cars (Henry Ford), banking (R. R. Morgan), and consumer goods (Richard Sears, R. H. Macy, Montgomery Ward). Leaders in business became major national figures, and management was recognized as a scientific study. It witnessed the country grow from 38 million in 1870 to 100 million in 1916, increasing urbanization, and the emergence of reform movements that sought to ameliorate the widening inequalities between the rich and the poor and the unfettered power of big corporate monopolies that strained the social fabric.

Theodore Roosevelt's (Trust Buster) antitrust laws and the Progressive Era's (1890–1917) efforts to reduce poverty, improve schools, and make government and big business more responsible to people were expressions of that struggle. On the whole, there was a collective feeling of unlimited possibilities in the air and a sense that economic advancement and a better future was available to everyone who worked hard and invested in the future. Yet, two groups that benefited less from these efforts were the Native Americans and the country's Black citizens. The former were increasingly pushed onto less economically viable reservations; the latter, officially freed from slavery, ended up in de facto segregation, in particular, in the South.

Melting Pot America (1912–1929) continued the assimilation of immigrants from around the world into a uniquely American culture, reinforced by the ascension of the motion picture industry, professional sports, radio broadcasts, and jazz as its outward expressions. It was also a period of stark contrasts. On the one hand, the United States became an important political, military, and economic player on the world stage, accelerated by its role in World War I, granted women voting rights, and experienced the Roaring Twenties. Overall, life became more fast-paced, urban, and international.

On the other hand, Prohibition (1920) started, W. G. Harding (1921–1923) and his followers pushed for a return to isolationism, traditional American values, and law and order, and the Ku Klux Klan reached a membership of 5 million. Then, of course, the stock market crash (Black Friday) in 1929 had everything come crashing down.

Superpower America (1929–1960) saw even greater changes and tensions across the economic, political, and social spectrum. It witnessed the depth of the Depression and the slow recovery from it through Franklin D. Roosevelt's (1933–1945) New Deal policies. It turned the United States into the economic and military superpower that helped defeat Nazi fascism in Europe and, by dropping the first and only atomic bombs ever on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, made World War II in the Far East come to an end. As the most powerful nation of the so-called free world, it revitalized Western Europe through its extensive Marshall Plan and actively fought against the spread of communism in Korea (and later in Vietnam). Its political and economic leadership came to be felt throughout the world.

On the home front, the country experienced, among many other developments, unprecedented growth in population, accelerated movement from the inner city to the suburbs, the witch hunt of McCarthyism in the early 1950s, the stirring of the civil rights movement in the late 1950s, and the increasing influence of labor unions and the power of television.

Economic Superpower (1960–present) sees the United States, in particular after the implosion of the former Soviet Union in 1989, ascend to the economic, technological, and military leadership role in the new information age. As in earlier historical phases, there is light and shadow: the landing on the moon in 1969 and the externally and internally divisive Vietnam War; the civil rights movement and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.; the stock market boom of the mid-1980s and 1990s and its precipitous decline in 2001 as well as a stubborn poverty rate of 14% or more of the population; a concentration of wealth and power in ever smaller numbers of corporations and individuals and a proliferation of small businesses encouraged by the Internet and venture capital; increasing scientific and academic excellence and crumbling public schools; advances in medical and genetic knowledge and 40 million without health insurance (Prugh & Assadourian, 2003); insistence on equal opportunities for all of its citizens and the incarceration of a disproportionately large number of its so-called minority populations behind bars; the opening of the world through the dynamics of globalization and religious fundamentalism at home; and a call for freedom of the peoples of the world and the tightening of the freedoms of its own people after the shattering of the collective psyche on September 11.

Of course, such a quick run through U.S. history up to the present must remain woefully inadequate in capturing the richness, great achievements, and often wrenching struggles of U.S. society to live up to its ideals. However, it may be sufficient within the purpose of this chapter to highlight political, cultural, and social tensions and/or dilemmas that are inherent in U.S. society and that may help explain not only uniquely U.S. preoccupations and cultural preferences, but also their effects on the theory and practice of leadership. Table 14.1 offers a summary of these recurrent themes and tensions.

The first tension raises the question of whether or not it is possible for the United States to rise above the injustices of its early beginnings and, by the sheer force of its moral and economic performance, atone for them. Unlike other nations whose historical origins are often rooted in obscurity, the United States was formed during the time of recorded history and much of the strains of growth have been open for everyone to see. Throughout its history, U.S. society has always struggled with balancing grievous wrongs of the past, such as slavery or the decimation of the Native American nations, by erecting a society dedicated to justice and fairness for all. This struggle and the resulting sensitivities on both sides continue to be evident in the divisive debate over affirmative action and diversity and their practice in the workplace. Both issues also continue to occupy leadership theory and action at political and organizational levels.

TABLE 14.1
Recurrent Themes and Tensions in U.S. Society

1. Atoning for grievous past injustices		Creating a just and fair society
2. Pursuing narrow self-interests		Working for the common good
3. Current realities		“City set upon a hill”
4. Liberty (free market and free from government)		Equality (equity and solidarity)
5. Efficiency (big business, government, labor)		Community (“small is beautiful”)
6. Individualism		Collectivism
7. Existential equality		Existential inequality
8. Live to work		Work to live
9. Change		Stability
10. Data/measurement		Values/morals
11. Practicality		Ideas/intellect
12. Action		Reflection

Note. Items 1–3 are from Johnson (1997). Items 4 and 5 are from O'Toole (1993). Items 6–12 are from Hoppe (2003) and Wilson, Hoppe, and Sayles (1996).

The second question is, how to balance the desire to build the perfect community with the strong tendency toward individual acquisitiveness and ambition that has been present in all phases of U.S. history. Paul Johnson (1997) asks, “Have the Americans got the mixture right?” (p. 3). Has the United States succeeded in building a nation where the common good triumphs over narrow self-interest? The settlement of what is now the United States was part of a larger enterprise of the best and the brightest of the entire European continent—and later of peoples from around the world. A large majority of them were crossing the oceans in search of purely economic gain and/or freedom from political and religious oppression. However, they were also idealists and, in many ways, for example, in Europe, opportunities were too small for them (in earlier centuries, e.g., the 11th to the 13th, the people of Europe had gone East, seeking to re-Christianize the Holy Land and neighboring countries). This mixture of religious fervor, desire for economic gain, need to escape the narrow confines of their homeland, and the sheer force of adventure that inspired generations of crusaders also characterized the early settlers in the eastern part of the continental United States. This same combination is still recognizable today in Americans’ fierce insistence on their right to pursue personal wealth on the one hand and their longing for something greater than their own narrow interests on the other. It can also be detected in models of leadership that stress an entrepreneurial mind-set, passion, ambition, and courage, as well as a sense of communal responsibility as critical characteristics of successful leaders.

The third tension is concerned with the question of whether or not the United States has indeed emerged to be an exemplary country for the rest of humanity. Americans originally visualized an otherworldly “city set upon on a hill,” in which “we must delight in each other, make others’ conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our community as members of the same body” (John Winthrop, cited in Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985, p. 28). However, U.S. society has found the ideal difficult to achieve. Wide discrepancies in income distribution, poverty, and racial discriminations continue to contrast with crowning achievements in technology, concern for human rights worldwide, and justice and equality before the law for all. Although these incongruencies are not unique to U.S. society, the desire to overcome them and the firm belief that it can be done are mirrored in a can-do attitude, hope-for-success approach, and an emphasis on optimism in U.S. leadership theory and practice.

James O'Toole (1993) describes related tensions in U.S. thought and experience—tensions between liberty and equality and efficiency and community. They represent four different visions of the good or just society, visions that in their entirety are always present, but whose inherent contradictions leadership at any level of society, explicitly or implicitly, struggles to reconcile.

Liberty stresses the absolute political and economic freedom whose only law is that of supply and demand. It invites rugged individualism and freedom from governmental and institutional intervention. It is the world of the entrepreneur who thrives in a free-market environment in which personal freedom, choice, and property are seen as sacrosanct and preconditions for “the pursuit of happiness.” It is viewed as the most critical prerequisite for contributing to the higher order good of society.

In contrast, proponents of equality tend to loathe the absolute freedom of the market. They focus on the resulting inequities in income and power and strive to minimize them. They see government as having a legitimate and important role in reducing these inequities. They fight for disenfranchised groups and minorities. Theirs is a society of social activists in which solidarity and social justice among its citizens are seen as the higher order good.

Efficiency stresses economy of scale. The good society is seen to be achieved by having business, government, and labor work together to create full employment and growth, with constantly increasing standards of living. Technology, science, capital markets, mergers, conglomerates, and globalization are symbols and mechanisms for achieving maximum efficiency. It is the world of the corporate manager whose purpose is to increase the return on investment for stockholder satisfaction.

On the other hand, proponents of community tend to abhor a society of big business, big government, and big unions. “Small is beautiful” is their credo. High quality of life, moral rectitude, service, good stewardship of the planet, collaboration, and face-to-face interaction describe the good society for them. It is the world of the communitarian in which simplicity, preservation, local control, and democracy from the bottom up are cherished.

Taken together, these four themes are deeply embedded in the U.S. Constitution as well as describing some of the inherent tensions in capitalism as an ideological belief system. They are also incisively captured in Bellah et al.’s (1985) discussion of individualism and commitment in American life. Similarly, they can be seen as recurrent tensions in U.S. leadership thought and practice—tensions between competition and collaboration, centralization and decentralization, tasks and relationships. Currently, the ideas of the free (and global) market and efficiency seem to have the upper hand. Simultaneously, the ideal leader tends to be described as an individual go-getter, someone who is clear on his or her direction, gets things done, and strives for efficiency in everything, while struggling to respond to demands by people inside and outside of his or her organization for more input, some balance between work and personal life, and a sense of belonging.

Another, pervasive, theme in U.S. history and today's society is briefly mentioned at this point due to its fundamental impact on many of its institutions and, by extension, its leadership practices: institutional and personal religion. Religion was held to be of supreme importance by virtually all Americans in the first half of the 20th century (Johnson, 1997). Even recent surveys suggest that about 95% of U.S. citizens believe in a God, compared to half of that in many European countries (Halman & de Moor, 1993). Inglehart's (1997) research of cultural, economic, and political changes in societies around the world point to similar findings. Alexis de Tocqueville had already observed during the first half of the 19th century that Americans held religion to be indispensable for evolving free institutions (Pierson, 1938). Today, the political “religious right” or religious groups around the country continue to exert a strong influence on national policies in education, politics, and family planning. Character, integrity, responsibility, and honesty are among the important values in that debate. They also are seen as critical attributes of effective leaders.

A Cultural Sketch of the Characteristics of Effective Leaders in U.S. Society

The remaining themes (6–12) in Table 14.1 are cultural themes to which every society develops its own blend of answers, given their historical, religious, and economic circumstances. Stewart and Bennett (1991) have discussed the unique American cultural patterns in great and most insightful detail. Hofstede (1980, 2001), Hoppe (1990), Schwartz (1994), Merritt (2000), House et al. (2004), and others have largely confirmed them in extensive empirical studies. Overall, mainstream U.S. society consistently falls in the Anglo segment of country clusters (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), with generally high levels of individualism, performance orientation, masculinity, and assertiveness and low to moderate levels of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. In addition, it is described as having distinct preferences for facts/data and a practical and active approach to life's challenges.

Yet, it is apparent even to the relatively untrained eye that the United States is of great cultural heterogeneity, consisting of multiple ethnic and religious groups who have found different answers to the themes and tensions in Table 14.1. For instance, for Native Americans, working for the common good, community, and solidarity play a significantly larger role in their lives than in current mainstream U.S. society. Also, the Society of Friends (Quakers) strives for a more “small is beautiful” approach and actively engages in causes of social justice and the common good. Similarly, the servant leadership model (Greenleaf, 1977) emphasizes values inherent in the right-hand column of Themes 1 to 5 in Table 14.1. Furthermore, there exists also a deeply felt sympathy in U.S. culture for the “underdog” and “antihero,” who, against all odds, win the day against seemingly superior challengers. Last but not least, it needs to be kept in mind that no social construct, such as culture, by the very definition as a social construct, is static. Changing circumstances inside and/or outside of a society help new perspectives or even entire new paradigms emerge (Kuhn, 1970). So, it is with the concept of leadership, in general, and perceptions of effective leaders, in particular.

As a highly individualistic culture, the United States believes in the right of each individual to pursue his or her own happiness. With this credo comes the obligation and expectation to take care of oneself, and distinguish oneself through one's own personal achievements. Initiative and independence are highly valued. Self-actualization through continuous self-improvement is the goal. Achievement motivation is lauded. In the final analysis, one's identity is due to one's own achievements, or the lack thereof. As we have seen in the brief historical overview earlier, this emphasis on the individual may have well served— and been reinforced by—the early frontier experience and its demands for self-reliance. It conjures images of the “Marlboro Man,” John Wayne, or the frequently expressed admonition (or wish?) “lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

The slogan “live to work” illustrates that U.S. culture has a more “masculine” or tough orientation to life (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Hoppe, 1998; Robinson, 2003). Things that are big, strong, fast, or tangible expressions of success (e.g., money!) are desired and admired. In terms of leadership, a focus on work and career, performance, results, challenge, competition, execution, “going the extra mile,” decisiveness, and efficiency are key characteristics that are sought and rewarded in a leader (House et al., 2004). Getting the job done, whatever it takes, is the goal. Good working relationships or conditions, collaboration, or solidarity among coworkers may become mere means toward that end. On the whole, hard work and achievement are considered the basis for a good life. The American author's, Horatio Alger (1832–1899), “rags to riches” books for boys captured this theme at an almost mythical level.

In the area of leadership, the belief in the existential equality (small to moderate power distance) of all members of U.S. society visibly dovetails the emphasis on the individual and achievement. You are what you have achieved. Nobody is superior in the eyes of the Creator. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote almost 200 years ago while visiting America: “The greatest equality seems to reign, even among those who occupy very different positions in society” (cited in Pierson, 1938, p. 65). It is assumed that everybody's opinion, input, and personal experience sui generis has validity and ought to be considered. Hierarchies are established out of necessity or convenience to get the job done. Informality in dress, speech, and behavior is tolerated or even encouraged. At the same time, there exists a managerial prerogative in the American workplace. Employees accept, at least more so than in Denmark or Sweden, that the manager, by virtue of having achieved this role and level of responsibility, has the right to exercise his or her power to the exclusion of others (Hoppe, 1993).

In looking at these first three U.S. cultural orientations in their interaction, leadership tends to be viewed as something that an individual in a leadership role does. The task, then, of a leader is to successfully deal with a challenge or opportunity through his or her own initiative, skills, experience, ability to get others involved, and the authority granted to him or her and, in the process, make a mark for him or herself. This mind-set may lead, then, to curricula vitae or stories by managers that claim that they “turned the company around,” or “saved the company $50 million,” or “made the marketing department number 1 in the industry,” even though such successes clearly could not have happened without the significant help from their direct reports and many others. In social attribution theory, it could be called the “me” theory.

Flexibility and openness to change and new experiences are another cultural cornerstone. What is different or new is exciting. Mobility is expected. The newest technology or fashion is welcomed. New leadership models are eagerly explored, for example, leadership as jazz, permanent whitewater, chaos theory, or the learning organization. The admonition “to learn the competency of incompetence” (Vaill, 1996) elevates the need for life-long learning. The advice “if it is not broken, break it” (Peters, 1987) attests to the willingness to experiment and take risks. Creativity, innovation, and out-of-the-box thinking are encouraged. Rules, regulations, and policies are kept only as long as they make sense, given changing circumstances. Overall, men and women with the aforementioned mind-set and characteristics who feel comfortable with change and its resulting uncertainties are thought of as leader caliber.

Not surprisingly, U.S. culture's preference for and practices of individual achievement, hard work, existential equality among its members, and openness to change in its leaders (and, by extension, the entire society) greatly overlap with those described in the brief historical overview. They are deeply rooted, all pervasive, and seen as “natural” requirements of an effective leader. They surface repeatedly in later sections of the chapter.

The strong preference for data, that is, empirical, observable, measurable facts, is rooted in an American assumption that “rational thinking is based on an objective reality where measurable results can be attained” (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p. 30). It is reinforced by a scientific worldview that calls for objective, quantifiable facts. Historically, it might be seen as an expression of the American experience of moving west and experiencing progress in terms of miles traveled, cattle herded, or settlements created. Culturally, it is embedded in the combination of individualism and weak uncertainty avoidance that enables people to “let the facts speak for themselves,” because there are fewer social constraints to interpret those in a socially acceptable way and fewer emotional ones, respectively, to shy away from unpredictable outcomes. Thus, effective leaders are expected to use data, provide objective analyses, establish measurable goals, and make fact-based decisions. On the other hand, Behrman (1988) cautions against the overuse of this latter approach. It tends to relegate values, morals, and purpose to secondary roles and perpetuate the fallacy that data are “value-free.” In fact, Hofstede in reporting on d'Iribarne's comparative study (1994) of a Dutch, French, and American aluminum production plant observes among U.S. managers the very approach to data that Behrman favors. Whereas the Dutch respect facts the most, “in France, status and power often prevail over facts, and Americans want to make facts yield to moral principles” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 119).

Hofstadter (1969) writes in detail about the anti-intellectualism in American life. Cavanagh (1984) observes that to “to call an American ‘impractical’ would be a severe criticism” (p. 20). In other words, practicality and a corresponding preference for inductive and operational thinking are highly valued. Effective leaders are expected to “get the job done” and be pragmatic, flexible, efficient, good problem solvers, and hands-on. Grand theories or intellectual discourse void of practical application are suspect. The focus is on making quick and effective adjustments to immediate problems. This preference may partly be due to “the American concern with avoiding failure in the future by taking action in the present” (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p. 36). It is also informed by the dynamics of an individual achievement orientation and the willingness to experiment. Historically, it may be seen in the need for finding workable solutions to conquer and survive in the new land and the belief in the virtue of leading a simple and productive life.

U.S. society's preference for action over reflection can be described at two different levels. At one level, it is an expression of the biblical injunction of gaining mastery over the world and the belief that we ought to shape our own destiny. Exerting control over one's life and environment is seen as an individual duty. Making progress is quintessential. On another level, but a closely connected one, the high value for action expresses itself in the ways in which societies like to acquire information and/or knowledge. For example, the United States as a whole tends to favor an active, experimental, and experiential approach to learning (Hoppe, 1990). Solving problems through trial and error, case studies, or experiential exercises, for example, in the development of leaders, are common practice.

Taken together, both aspects can be observed in slogans or proverbs, such as “just do it,” “the devil finds idle hands,” “life, be in it,” “got to stay busy, man,” and “fish or cut bait.” In terms of effective leadership, leaders are expected to take action, at times, just for the sake of it, because taking no action is seen as worse than taking a less than perfect action. They are also measured on the degree to which they exert control and are forceful, decisive, quick, and assertive.

Not separately listed in Table 14.1, but relevant for this cultural sketch of the ideal U.S. leader, is a society's orientation to time. One distinction is between societies that have mono-chronic or polychronic concepts of time (Hall & Hall, 1990). The monochronic orientation is descriptive of most economically highly developed societies, for example, Germany and the United States. Time is seen as a scarce resource that needs to be used as efficiently as possible, as in the saying “time is money.” Effective leaders spend their time purposefully and with intensity. They get to the task quickly, start meetings on time, and meet deadlines. They sequentially work from the present toward the future and generally prefer a shorter time frame. At the same time, U.S. society admires leaders with a vision. However, having a vision is typically understood as having an organizational focus/direction or a personal sense of purpose, not as a long-term approach. Short-term objectives remain important (Nanus, 1992).

In summing up this brief sketch of mainstream U.S. culture, here are some of the key leader characteristics that its people, implicitly and/or explicitly, look for and endorse in their leaders:

Additional Characteristics and Images of Outstanding U.S. Leaders

To be sure, there are many more characteristics of effective leaders in U.S. culture, as the lengthy lists in the U.S. leadership literature attest. However, at this point, this first summary is sufficient for providing the stage for the perceptions and images that surfaced, as we asked U.S. university students and colleagues to describe for us leaders of the past and present from any walks of life whom they admired the most.

The individuals who emerged as the primary examples of outstanding leaders from a group of university students¹ in the domain of business and commerce were Bill Gates of Microsoft, Jack Welch Jr. of General Electric, Lee Iacocca of Chrysler, and Thomas Watson Jr. of IBM.

Bill Gates. Bill Gates, the chairman and until recently the CEO of Microsoft, is currently seen as one of the world's richest and most influential leaders in the field of business and commerce, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. Under his leadership, Microsoft revolutionized computing and became one of the most important competitors in the Internet and media businesses. During his childhood, Bill Gates was noted for his high intelligence and a special talent for business from an early age. At the age of 21, he dropped out of Harvard and, with Paul Allen, started Microsoft. He is perceived to be a brilliant strategist, but not a particularly empathetic human being. It has been said that he would rather destroy his competitor than attempt to grow the market. At Microsoft, Bill Gates is known as having “incredible processing power,” “unlimited bandwidth,” and a high skill in “parallel processing” and “multitasking”; that is, he is seen as most adept in accomplishing several tasks at the same time. The students saw Mr. Gates as relentless, extremely intelligent, and someone who reached the pinnacle of success by his sheer force of astute business judgment and personality. He was perceived as the most important business leader in the United States, perceptions shared by many business periodicals, such as Business Week, Fortune magazine, and The Economist. He was also admired for his huge success and described as highly individualistic and as someone who likes to stand out from the rest of his peers by his sheer will and force of personality.

John F. Welch Jr. Also known as Jack Welch, the legendary chairman of General Electric (GE) breathed new life into GE in 1981, after being named the company's eighth and youngest chairman at 45. He did so by eliminating over a hundred thousand jobs, breaking up its rigid hierarchy at the time, and shifting assets from mature manufacturing businesses into fast-growing high-technology and service operations. Welch grew up in working-class Salem, Massachusetts, the only son of a railroad conductor. His mother infused him with strong sense of ambition and self-confidence. She told him that his stammering, which persists today, was not a handicap but a sign that his mind worked faster than he could talk. He never dreamed of becoming a big businessman. After earning a doctorate in chemical engineering, Welch went to work for GE where he succeeded in transforming a struggling plastics business into a sterling success within GE and in emerging as a brilliant, sometimes abrasive, leader with a great eye for operational details. Had Welch arrived in any GE business other than plastics, the future CEO of GE might have left in a matter of months, because he was the antithesis of everything GE stood for at the time: a young man who had no patience for bureaucracy and wanted things to be done as fast as possible. He is said to rush ahead with a speed marked by impulsive vehemence and is known to flout convention. Welch is also known for putting greater emphasis on substance than on style and to be a man of a remarkably forceful vision. Even though the students and others described him as ruthless at times, Welch was considered one of the great business leaders, because he was successful in bringing about extremely high rates of growth in his company and improving performance in the eyes of Wall Street analysts.

Lee Iacocca. The students perceived Lee Iacocca, the former chairman of Chrysler Corporation, as the third most important leader. He is considered a legend who saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the early 1980s, and who became a household word. During his heyday, he was regarded as one of the greatest CEOs in American history, because of his unique ability to rescue the third-largest automobile company in the United States by proposing a unique liaison with the American government. Some historians interpret his approach as a bailout, but there is no doubt that he played a large role in saving Chrysler from bankruptcy. The son of an Italian immigrant, Iacocca worked at various jobs during college before he found an engineering job at Ford Motor Company. When he realized he was better in marketing than manufacturing, he moved to the company's headquarters in Detroit. Widely known as a creator of Ford's successful Mustang, he rose to become president of Ford Motor Company. Not long after he was fired in the late 1970s as president by Ford's chairman, Henry Ford II, he was appointed chairman of the Chrysler Corporation, which he transformed into a profitable corporation in the 1980s. In Iacocca, the students saw a person who is forceful and highly individualistic in orientation, has a knack for marketing, and can turn a company around even under the most difficult circumstances.

Thomas Watson Jr. Thomas Watson Jr. is known for revolutionizing the computer industry. He transformed IBM from a rather modest manufacturer of typewriters and adding machines into a leading global corporation. He was the first to risk the future of the entire company on the 360 series computers that rendered previous IBM machines obsolete. Thomas Watson Jr. grew up under the tutelage of his father, Watson Sr., the founder of IBM. His early years were plagued by self-doubts as to whether he had the ability to satisfy his overly demanding father. After an unsuccessful stint as a junior salesman in IBM for 3 years, he enlisted to serve in World War II and returned to become the next chairman of IBM. In his mission to excel beyond the accomplishments of his father, he pushed the company to higher levels of profits and productivity. Under Watson, IBM developed a customer-first strategy that enabled the company to anticipate the growing needs of customers as opposed to reacting to them in a knee-jerk fashion. Briefly, the students regarded Thomas Watson Jr. as a highly successful leader who knew how to take risks and who was highly innovative.

In the area of politics, the students listed a large number of individuals. We describe three leaders of their choice who are widely recognized by American historians as great public leaders, Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy.

Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States for only 4 years (1861–1865), because he was assassinated 2 months into his second term. He is generally considered the greatest and most influential president that America ever had. Lincoln not only helped abolish slavery, but also kept the United States from splitting into two, and attempted to create a republic that would be forever guided by moral, ethical, and democratic principles. His nickname was Honest Abe, and he was described as a man of great humility and friendliness toward others. At the height of the Civil War, the combination of his deeply felt conviction that slavery was wrong on moral grounds, his iron will, and his ability to express his convictions clearly and with force helped him succeed even in an utmost difficult situation. He complemented his leadership with an ability to completely dedicate himself to his cause and to work extremely hard. Though he was not known for his administrative skills, he was considered an effective delegator and developer of people. Another of his characteristics was that, even though he was a trained lawyer, he tended to rely more on his own intuition in reaching important decisions than on the opinions of experts.

Harry S. Truman. Harry S. Truman (1945–1953) was thrust into the presidency, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt died in April of 1945. Within his first few months in office, Nazi Germany surrendered and then Japan, after he had ordered to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He also became known for his improbable reelection victory over Thomas E. Dewey, as well as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the establishment of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and the United States's entry into the Korean War. In large part, his policies and actions were intended to combat the spread of communism. Truman was feared for his blunt, outspoken, and combative style, but admired for working hard and for his courage, determination, and self-discipline. His friends and supporters described him as straightforward, honest, loyal, and a devoted family man. Truman deliberately crafted his public image as that of an ordinary man who is “just a country Jake who works the job” or “just an old Missouri farmer.” Stephen Goode, a presidential historian, called him an “extraordinary ordinary man.”

John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy (1961–1963) is considered a great president and leader because of his profound capacity for articulating a vision that galvanized the citizens of his country, that is, to put a man on the moon. Similarly, his appeal to the American people “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” offered them a deeper sense of purpose that energized them. Kennedy, the youngest president ever elected (aged 43) and the first of Catholic background, was admired for his wit, charm, and charismatic personality. With his intelligent and attractive wife, Jacqueline, Kennedy's presidency came to be known as Camelot. His depiction as a war hero and being the son of a wealthy and influential family contributed to this image. In addition, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, his support of the early civil rights movement, and the creation of the Peace Corps helped his political stature, despite the Bay of Pigs blunder during his first year in office. Despite recurring health problems and personal infidelities while in office, his youthful demeanor, informality, optimism, and appeal to the good instincts within each person and the nation as a whole are lasting images of his leadership and presidency. His assassination on November 22, 1963, remains the most vivid and traumatic image of that presidency.

Three leaders emerged in the area of education. They were Derek Bok of Harvard University, James Bryant Conant of Harvard University, and Harold Bloom of Yale and New York University.

Derek Bok. Bok is known for his vision to reform the medical and graduate school programs at Harvard University. During his tenure as president of Harvard in the 1980s, he significantly raised Harvard's endowment and started a university-wide initiative on teaching ethics across all curricula. After his retirement, he wrote The Cost of Talent, in which he compares and contrasts the economic-compensation practices in many prominent professions in the United States. He was considered a highly innovative and visionary leader in the field of education in the latter part of the 20th century.

James Bryant Conant. James Bryant Conant, among many other achievements, a chemistry professor by training and president of Harvard for 20 years, is recognized as an important reformer for popularizing the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and other standardized tests to improve the quality of students admitted to American universities. It was his vision and his actions that also helped improve the economic situation of minorities and other disadvantaged young people, by making it possible for them to get admitted to some of the leading universities in the United States. Because of his vision of administrating standardized aptitude tests, the doors of prestigious American universities opened up to promising, yet poor, students from different segments of U.S. society. He was perceived as one of the most important leaders in the American educational system during the second half of the 20th century.

Harold Bloom. Bloom, America's preeminent literary critic, is the author of more than 20 books. He is considered to be one of the great thinkers in the field of English literature in contemporary America. His book The Anxiety of Influence, is known for popularizing the idea of Freudian philosophy. He is also remembered for making Shakespeare's writings more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. He strongly believed that Shakespeare's work is highly relevant for understanding human behavior in the past and present.

When looking at all three leaders at once, what becomes apparent is that all of them are perceived to be highly innovative and intelligent, visionary, and unconventional in their thinking. By acting on those ideas, they changed what it meant to be educated and, thereby, profoundly influenced the lives of many Americans.

In the domain of sports and entertainment, the students listed numerous names, in part due to the immense role that sports and entertainment play in U.S. society and in part because of the passions that they feel for their teams and/or type of sport (of course, the terms sports and entertainment are largely synonymous within the U.S. cultural context).

Professional and college sports are big business in the United States, on a scale almost unimaginable to the rest of the countries of the world. Professional football, basketball, baseball, and hockey teams dot the U.S. landscape. The Dallas Cowboys, for example, called themselves America's team. The Chicago Bulls, during Michael Jordan's heydays, were known worldwide. At the college level, Duke University in basketball or the University of Oklahoma in football are household names. There are many other well-known teams, such as the New York Yankees, the Green Bay Packers, or the Los Angeles Lakers. All of them continuously look for highly qualified professional coaches and/or general managers, often with high name recognition and an outstanding track record, who can help their organization succeed.

Vince Lombardi, the former coach of the professional football team, the Green Bay Packers, largely epitomizes the successful leader in sports. He won five National Football League (NFL) championships in nine seasons with the Packers. His dictum, “winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all-the-time thing,” has become a revered philosophy in American sports, but not just in sports. People's personal and professional lives are full of sports-related values and metaphors, such as “be a good sport,” “let's huddle” (i.e., get together and talk about it), “we hit a home run” (i.e., we greatly and quickly succeeded), or “don't throw me a fastball” (i.e., don't surprise/take advantage of me). Also, many successful athletes switch to careers in business and politics and many public leaders, for example, Lincoln and Kennedy, were admired in their youth for their athleticism.

Other leaders who are highly respected by the American public are Tom Landry, former football coach of the Dallas Cowboys, and Phil Jackson, formerly with the Chicago Bulls, now with the Los Angeles Lakers. They and others are typically described as being highly knowledgeable in their sport (business!), innovators in their field, forceful, passionate about winning, and assertive in exercising their authority.

In entertainment, the students recognized Ted Turner of Time Warner, Steven Spielberg, the movie director of Indiana Jones fame, and Michael Eisner of Disney as outstanding leaders. All three were seen as rather unconventional in their approaches, highly creative, and assertive and confident in voicing their visions. They were also singled out for their willingness to take significant risks and succeeding in their fields with flying colors.

The second list of names of outstanding leaders came from staff members of the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina.² The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. emerged as the top vote getter. The key reasons why he and the other leaders were chosen follow:

Martin Luther King Jr.: Righted a wrong, rallied a nation, nonviolent, spearheaded a movement, led by example, unfaltering, clear in purpose and values, charismatic, catalyst, visionary, motivator for social change, focused, love for equality, justice, and peace, advocate, courage, inspirational, organized, and had a strategy. Also, “he had some (personal) flaws.”

John F. Kennedy: Charismatic, a war hero, asked “what you can do for the country,” inspirational, idealism, youthfulness, did not forget the poor, inspired country to greatness, handsome.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Led the nation out of the Great Depression, led the nation through difficult times, swift, bold action despite criticism, able to get others to work together, his social programs.

Abraham Lincoln: Preserved nation, his Emancipation Proclamation, unreproachable integrity and wisdom, humility, true to himself, courage despite risk to him, strong in difficult times, intelligent, kept eye on the vision, standing up for his beliefs.

Obviously, these two lists of outstanding U.S. leaders are rather selective. Another group of students or staff from another company might have chosen some different names of leaders and reasons for selecting them. Also, the students and staff members shared their perceptions of these individuals, even though most of them very likely had little direct knowledge of their true-life circumstances and/or actions. However, the leader characteristics that emerged from the analysis of the leaders’ backgrounds and achievements are very much in line with those found in U.S. literature, in general, and commonly used U.S. leader questionnaires, in particular. Furthermore, they are reflected in recent cover stories by mainstream news magazines such as U.S. News & World Report (Gilgoff et al., 2005) on America's currently best leaders. Together, they add to those from the earlier cultural sketch the following characteristics: It is considered important for an outstanding leader to:

A few additional insights could be gained from the respondents’ descriptions of their most admired leaders. For example, age, that is, advanced age, did not seem to matter. In fact, the examples of Bill Gates, Jack Welch and, in particular, John F. Kennedy pointed to the attractiveness or, at least, acceptance of youthful leaders. In today's fast-paced Internet and information age, this is clearly visible in places such as Silicon Valley. Furthermore, the United States has always been described as a youth-oriented culture.

Some of the leaders were seen to be ruthless and abrasive (Jack Welch) or blunt, outspoken, and combative (Harry Truman). Although they weren't particularly lauded for these characteristics, members of U.S. society overall tend to think that these types of shortcomings are a small price to pay for a leader's ability to have great impact and/or win. At the same time, studies at the Center for Creative Leadership have repeatedly shown that problems with interpersonal relationships are one of the chief reasons why people in leadership roles don't reach their potential in their careers (Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996).

Similarly, formal education seemed to be of little concern; for example, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard at 21. In fact, throughout U.S. history a person's formal education or training has been treated as secondary to getting the job done and being successful.

Personal failings or infidelities in past and current U.S. leaders have received, at times, widespread attention in the U.S. media and worldwide. For example, John F. Kennedy's persistent infidelities were well known. Former President Clinton was impeached because of his sexual involvement with a White House intern and his lying about it. Also, Jesse Jackson, leader of the Rainbow Coalition, admitted to having fathered a child outside of his marriage and briefly withdrew from public life. Although their failings were heavily criticized and their personal lives thoroughly scrutinized by the media, they did not, in the final analysis, greatly erode their approval ratings as public figures performing their jobs. Aside from political motifs, it seems as though Americans prefer their leader to be a person of good intentions and/or high moral convictions, but that they can overlook personal imperfections and failings, as long as the person is highly successful in performing the public office. This applies even more to the corporate world where the media spotlight is less invasive and returns on stockholders’ investments are the measure of success.

Even when leaders “fall,” past personal failings may become assets, as long as the person has shown remorse and/or genuinely asked for forgiveness from the people around him or her—and has worked hard to succeed in any new endeavor! U.S. society is a “second-chance culture.” It cheers the “come-back kid.” It admires the person who has picked him- or herself up from failure(s) and has become a success again (“it's not a sin to get knocked down; it's a sin to stay down”). It embraces a person's heroic struggle that ends in victory (Hubbell, 1990).

In short, U.S. society tends to pay limited attention to individual leaders’ age, formal education, personal shortcomings or failings, and failures—as long as they succeed and win in the long run.

2.  PREOCCUPATIONS AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN U.S. LEADERSHIP RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

As we have seen, leadership as a social construct, and as reflected in the perceptions of its people, is deeply embedded in the historical, political, economic, social, and cultural fabric of U.S. society. By extension, the same is to be expected in the field of leadership research. The men and women who conduct and fund the research activities bring their individual and professional propensities with them, but equally important, their cultural lenses. There is no “culture-free” research (Hofstede, 1993). Moreover, a society's cultural makeup influences which academic discipline(s) is drawn to studying the phenomenon. In the United States, the vast majority of leadership scholars are psychologists by training (Hofstede & Kassem, 1976). So, with this in mind, we highlight some of the preoccupations in U.S. leadership research (for more extensive overviews, see Bass, 1990; House & Aditya, 1997; Kellerman, 1984).

Leadership Research in the United States: Cultural Preoccupations

As a social construct that enjoys widespread daily use in U.S. society, definitions of leadership abound. However, most definitions of leadership by U.S. researchers, including the one used by GLOBE, have tended to mirror the one by Ralph Stogdill of Ohio State University who stated that “leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement” (Stogdill, 1950, p. 3). For the purpose of this chapter, one element of this definition is highlighted: Leadership tends to be seen as a process of influence in which the individual leader exercises considerable impact on others by inducing them to think and behave in certain ways. As a result, the study of effective leadership in the American tradition has largely been reduced to what the individual leader does and his or her ability to accomplish in a superior fashion the declared and not so clearly articulated goals of the group or organization or the body politics.

This ability to influence the actions of others could be studied as a function of the leader's positional authority and/or his or her personal qualities and characteristics as individuals (Drath, 2001). Regarding the latter, researchers examined a large number of traits, such as height, intelligence, self-confidence, and introversion/extraversion, as possible predictors of effective leaders. Yet, what Stogdill (1948) had concluded earlier remained largely true. Though most of the traits were related to the exercise of leadership in a variety of settings and tasks, it was difficult to predict who might become a leader based on the knowledge of individual traits alone. Furthermore, leaders did not necessarily become leaders by possessing some important traits, but by adjusting their pattern of personal characteristics to the tasks and the characteristics, goals, and activities of the people with whom they worked. Thus, effective leaders became to be conceived in terms of the interaction between leader and follower(s) characteristics and the task at hand.

This insight led to a host of contingency studies (see Bass, 1990). All of them, despite conceptual, psychometric, and methodological issues and limitations, received varying degrees of support in laboratory studies, that is, under controlled conditions. However, their support in field studies, trying to predict a leader's effectiveness, generated conflicting and ambiguous results. Staw (1975) and Calder (1977) offered a possible explanation. They suggested that attributions of effective or ineffective leadership are largely a function of the feedback that group members receive pertaining to their performance in a given situation. For example, if group members are told that their group had performed well, they tend to attribute this to the group leader's effective leadership and ineffective leadership, when told that they had performed poorly. Staw and Calder concluded that one of the fundamental problems in leadership research is one of making correct attributions in a given situation where social actors are likely to be interested in inferring the causes and consequences of their actions.

A second explanation came from Kerr and Jermier (1978), who showed that even the most effective leaders are not necessarily going to be either successful or even needed in some situations; that there exist many neutralizers in the work situation (intrinsic interest in the task, level of technological control permitted in task accomplishment, high degrees of professionalism on the part of group members, etc.) that can negate or reduce the leadership attempts made by even the most competent individuals. Similarly, Pfeffer (1977) and Schein (1985) noted that situational forces in an organization's environment or the organization culture, respectively, may be more critical in describing the effectiveness of a leader than what the individual actually does.

This observation was in line with Leiberson and O'Conner's (1972) and also Hunt and Osborn's (1982) earlier contentions that the effect size of a leader's impact on organizational performance is far smaller than most people expect; that performance variation in a firm is more a function of macrovariables in the external environment, such as variations in a given industry and in overall economic conditions affecting the firm. Later work on the “power of organizational architecture” (Nadler & Tushman, 1997) integrated much of the work on the importance of the internal and external environment for a leader's effectiveness.

Yet, in spite of the ambiguous and conflicting research findings in the leadership research literature and the emergence of the importance of the environment in the leadership effectiveness equation, leadership, in particular, the individual leader, remained a topic of great fascination in U.S. popular and academic culture. Enhanced in the early 1980s by the intuitive appeal of the contingency models to the practitioner and the success of books, such as the One Minute Manager (Blanchard & Johnson, 1981) and In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982), an endless supply of popular writings on leadership and training products began, with books on charismatic leadership (e.g., by Kousnes & Posner, 1987, and Bennis & Nanus, 1985), the transformational leader (Tichy & Devanna, 1986), the authentic leader (Terry, 1993), and many others. For example, online retailer Amazon.com alone lists currently about 9,000 books under the rubric of leadership.

Though an increasing number of academic models also began to look at leadership from the perspective of systems (Senge, 1990), chaos theory (Wheatley, 1992), learning (Vaill, 1996), teams (Hackman, 1990), or followership (Kelley, 1988), the vast majority of the leadership publications remained deeply steeped in the culturally endorsed image of the individual leader, as discussed earlier. Moreover, it appears that U.S. society, notwithstanding the weaknesses of the leadership construct in academic research, has collectively developed a causal link between what leaders do and the impact their actions have on a situation or in galvanizing a group of people toward a collective goal. Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) call this the “romance of leadership” in U.S. culture (see also Meindl, 1993).

New Dynamics Impacting U.S. Leadership Theory and Practice

U.S. society, like the world at large, has been experiencing many important changes that have begun to shape the ways in which its members are thinking about and enacting leadership. Dramatic changes in demographics within the U.S. in general and the workplace, in particular, helped spawn extensive new directions in research on diversity and women in leadership. The dynamics of globalization encouraged the study of cross-cultural differences and similarities in institutions, cultures, and national governments as contextual factors and their impact on leader styles and effectiveness. The rapid growth in the use of computers and the Internet in people's personal and professional lives is also prompting new leadership paradigms and practices. In this section of the chapter, we take a brief look, therefore, at some emerging insights from three selective areas—women and leadership, leadership in a global world, and leadership beyond the individual leader. Admittedly, the empirical evidence is either still sparse or, due to the inherently ambiguous nature of the leadership concept, ambiguous as well.

The interest in women as leaders is part of the larger dynamic of a dramatically changing U.S. workforce over the past 30 years during which the percentage of women in the workforce reached 46% and their proportion in executive, managerial, and administrative roles climbed to more than 44% (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). The full ramifications of these realities may not become apparent for years to come. However, there is some evidence of how women leaders may shift the images and perceptions of the effective leader in U.S. society.

One of the potential ramifications has to do with women's ways of thinking, relating, and leading. The U.S. literature tends to describe women in leadership roles on the whole as being more relational, cooperative, participative, egalitarian, communal, empathetic, responsive, and open—to name a few (Adler, 1999; Gilligan, 1982; Helgesen, 1995; Powell, 1999; Tannen, 1990). Recent special reports in Newsweek (Kantrowitz et al., 2005) on how women lead and the aforementioned U.S. News & World Report on America's best leaders, respectively, reinforce these research findings. Women leaders consider close working relationships with others, collaboration, and more balance between their professional and personal life as important ingredients of their effectiveness. These preferences tend to be contrasted with those of men, who are described as being more individualistic, directive, assertive, action oriented, decisive, forceful, and competitive. Not surprisingly, this characterization of male leaders has great similarity with the earlier cultural sketch of U.S. leaders. A straightforward explanation for this observation may be that the vast majority of leaders studied and described in the U.S. academic and popular literature are men, because they were the ones in the past who were elected to public office or reached managerial positions in corporate America. Also, as Maier suggests, there tends to exist a pervasive “corporate masculinity” (Maier, 1999, p. 71) in U.S. organizations that perpetuates a “masculine” image of the successful leader.

The question of which leadership approach makes for the more effective and/or preferred leader is inconclusive in the existing U.S. literature (Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999), mainly due to the limited and limiting nature of the question. As pointed out earlier, a leader's effectiveness is largely a function of the situation (including the people with whom the leader works) and the external environment. In other words, if the situation and the environment call for “feminine” leadership characteristics, women may be preferred and seen as being more effective. The same would apply to men in leadership roles. There is evidence for this expectation (Butterfield & Grinnell, 1999). In terms of being viewed as an effective leader, of course, it would be desirable if women and men would acquire the mentality, competence, and style that go beyond any gender stereotype or division. Viewing the male–female debate from an international perspective, Adler (1999) adds that the debate may be a uniquely American preoccupation, because men in other cultures around the world value and practice many of the very characteristics that the U.S. literature describes as typical traits of women leaders in the United States.

A second ramification has to do with the observation that being an effective leader in today's world may increasingly demand more of the characteristics that tend to be attributed to women. The evolving information age and its underlying paradigms (e.g., of quantum physics, relativity theory, and chaos theory) seem to call for more cooperation, alliances, networking, interdependence, nonhierarchical approaches, process orientation, participation, and intentional decision-making among individuals and organizations (Maynard & Mehrtens, 1993). In fact, in his discussion of today's global dynamics that allow people to work together across continents through electronic means, Friedman (2005) concludes that “in the flat world, more and more business will be done through collaboration within and between companies” (p. 352ff). Within the U.S. context, Faludi (1999) notes that the economic transition from manufacturing industry to service industry and information-based industry, or from production to consumption, is highly conducive to creating and sustaining a culture that values characteristics that are currently associated with women. Adler (1999) expands on this theme by looking at women leaders in the global arena. She concludes “the feminization of global leadership—beyond referring strictly to the increasing numbers of women who are global leaders—[will result in] the spread of traits and qualities generally associated with women” (p. 249). In other words, U.S. culture's emphasis on the individual go-getter, toughness, action, measurable outcomes, winning, and career may take on diminishing importance in the years to come—inside and outside of U.S. culture.

The impact of globalization on leadership theory and practice received a boost when the iron curtain came down in the late 1980s and people, information, money, and businesses began to travel more and more freely across national boundaries (Friedman, 2000, 2005). Ever since, long lists of traits of the effective global leader have been developed, including cognitive complexity, emotional intelligence, and psychological maturity (Rhinesmith, 1993; Wills & Barham, 1994). In addition, Rhinesmith writes

Traditionally, this more process-oriented, systemic, and global (and implicitly more cosmopolitan) style has not been considered a particular strength of the American leader.

In a recent empirical study, Dalton, Ernst, Deal, and Leslie (2002) identified cultural adaptability, perspective taking, innovation, and international business knowledge as four critical competencies for a global leader. Whereas the latter two are to be expected, cultural adaptability and perspective taking point to the need of future leaders to be aware of their and others’ deeply held assumptions, values, and beliefs, and to be able to, almost kaleidoscopically, see people and events from different perspectives so that they may quickly adjust their actions as needed (see also Rosen, 2000). This is difficult enough to do in one's own culture, but even harder across multiple cultures. Moreover, these characteristics clearly go beyond the descriptions found so far in the earlier historical sketch and images of the effective leader in U.S. society. In the relatively more homogeneous societal and organizational culture of the United States even just 30 years ago, leaders were seldom challenged to come to grips with deeply held differences between themselves and others.

On the other hand, the demands of the tremendous speed with which information can move across the globe and the information technology that makes it possible appear to match the American cultural propensity for action, data, practicality, and openness to change. The fascination with technology, deeply rooted in the American psyche (Behrman, 1988), complements it. As a result, U.S. leaders have more quickly embraced the new information technology than leaders elsewhere, for example, in Germany (Jung, 1997), to gather, store, and disseminate information throughout their organizations, create networks for geographically dispersed teams to efficiently work together, and turn the world, technologically speaking, into their own backyard. The question will be to what an extent future leaders not only can access the world, but equally connect to its peoples through increased cultural sensitivity, adaptability, and cultural self-awareness.

Finally, the most challenging dynamic impacting U.S. leadership thought and practice in the years to come may emerge from U.S. culture's (and the Western world, in general) view of the individual. As the anthropologist C. Geertz observes, “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe … organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against a social and natural background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world's cultures” (Geertz, 1979, p. 229; see also Gergen, 1996; Sampson, 1993, 2000). What is worth noting is that this highly individualistic conception of the person, even in the West, did not evolve until about 400 years ago—a rather recent development in terms of human history. It is also useful to realize that the so-called Western world constitutes only about one seventh of the world population (Oxford Atlas of the World, 1994). Stated differently, the majority of the world population even today adheres to a more collective view that stresses the socially constituted and deeply embedded nature of a person in which, for instance, leadership may be seen not as the sole property of one person, but as that of the collectivity.

Of course, there is nothing inherently “wrong” with this Western perspective. As a view of the individual that grew out of economic, political, and philosophical developments, for example, Descartes's cogito, ergo sum, it is culturally as legitimate as any other perspective. Moreover, it has powerfully contributed to the insistence on “the sanctity of the individual [as] fundamental to our values about freedom, responsibility, and accountability” (Drath, 1996, p. 2). However, as with any other cultural “given,” it remains mostly unexamined and is in conflict with the emerging emphasis on interdependence, mutuality, systems, process, interconnectedness, or networks of today's global information age, as discussed previously.

Within this latter context, leadership is described and studied not so much through a leader's individual characteristics and actions, but through connections, interfaces, systems, coordination mechanisms, that is, the “in-between” dynamics among and across people and organizations. Borrowing an analogy from the Internet, Levine, Locke, Searls, and Weinberger (2000) note, “The web is not predicated on individuals. It is a web. It is about connections” (p. 121; see also Sayles, 1993). Similarly, Drath (2003) and McCauley and Van Velsor (2004) suggest that leadership studies and development programs temper their overemphasis on the single leader and pay equal attention to the capacity of the entire organization, that is, its infrastructure and the web of relationships among its people, to engage in such basic leadership tasks as setting direction, creating alignment, gaining and maintaining commitment, and initiating and managing change. In their view, leadership needs to be developed and studied as the property of a social system, not only as that of an individual. Collins and Porras (1997) and Collins (2001) provide an example of this latter approach in their seminal studies of organizations that were “built to last” and that succeeded from being “good to [being] great,” respectively. In those companies, leaders had become “architects” and “builders” of their organization for sustained success in the market.

The cultural preoccupation in the United States with the individual leader and leadership in general leads to another blind spot—the neglect of the potential, responsibility, and desire in shared leadership by those who are typically not seen as leaders. Drath (2001) speaks of leadership as a shared process and responsibility in which the challenge for everyone is to help create a “leaderful” environment and partake in it. Heifetz (1994) introduces the notion of “adaptive challenges” in which people are challenged to actively engage in narrowing the gap that they experience between their shared values, needs, or desires and the realities that they face in their organizations or communities, thereby exercising leadership from the “bottom up.” Berry (1993) addresses the issue directly by observing that

Bellah et al. (1985) add, “When economics is the main model for our common life, we are more and more tempted to put ourselves in the hands of the manager and the expert” (p. 271).

Taken together, this brief look at the U.S. research literature on leadership and the emerging demands of today's world on the current and future theory and practice of leadership in the United States allows for the following additional observations. There is an emphasis on:

There is an awareness of the:

And there is a need for more:

Additional Insight: The Leader as Heroic Warrior

Overall, the major image that emerges from these various looks at the perceptions of effective leaders in theory and practice of U.S. society is that of the hero, more specifically, the hero as masculine “warrior” (Campbell, 1973; Pearson, 1986). The parallels between the warrior hero and the most admired leaders in U.S. culture are striking. They are summarized in Table 14.2.

TABLE 14.2
The Leader as Hero (“Warrior”) in U.S. Culture

Characteristics of a Hero (“Warrior”)		Characteristics of the Admired U.S. Leader
called to adventure, to distinguish himself, to do what is right, to redeem himself		has a vision, attempts something new, pursues a “dream,” has sense of purpose
transcends community, resists pull of conformity, is different		is unconventional, unique, true to himself and his convictions
leaves community, enters “wilderness” by himself		is individualistic, is determined, sticks to his vision, leads by example
acts in and on the world, is active and action oriented, seeks control over environment		is active and action oriented, has sense of urgency, exerts control, is a doer
takes great risks, encounters novel and difficult situations, faces significant enemy, shows courage		takes risks, is a catalyst, breaks through conventions, faces great odds, shows courage, takes on big challenge
possesses extraordinary gifts, talents, strengths, has experience		has a good track record, is outstanding, executes well, has some special talents
gets help from “protective” figure, wizard, special magic		takes advantage of opportunities, has a “mentor,” is optimistic
stands tall, faces death, overcomes defeat, is victorious, rescues those in distress		overcomes all odds, learns from mistakes, turns things around, works hard, is forceful, asserts himself, perseveres
can move and/or save lesser people, carries their hopes		is inspirational, galvanizes people, is transformational
faces own demon, comes into his own, reintegrates into community		is positive, shows honesty and integrity, makes changes for the good

Note. From Campbell (1973), Hubbell (1990), and Leeming (1981).

In this image of the leader as warrior hero, leaders are driven by an inner calling and/or that of their organization or community. They have a vision of the journey to be taken or the fight to be fought. They are catalysts of change. They are driven to action, have a sense of urgency, and assert themselves. They are willing or forced to take great risks, encounter numerous trials and tribulations, fail, pick themselves up again, overcome all odds, and through great strength, skill, and experience succeed. Their fight is a lonely one, perhaps even against the wishes of their own people, but their deep convictions pull them through and, eventually, they will succeed, and be recognized and admired. They may become mentors of others in their organization or active contributors to the community. Their names may adorn a building, a highway, or a scholarship fund after the successful completion of their “heroic journey.” “In many respects, [Abraham] Lincoln conforms perfectly to [this] archetype of the lonely, individualistic hero” (Bellah et al., 1985, p. 146). Similarly, Collins and Porras's (1997) “built to last” leaders and Collins's (2001) “level 5 leaders,” who combine great personal humility with a strong professional will, illustrate the power of this image of the individual leader as hero.

It is implicitly also the image of the leader as savior that in part is “our wish to rediscover hope and, interestingly enough, to have someone else provide it for us” (Block, 1993, p. 14). This tendency carries the risk of people getting disillusioned when the leader fails their hopes and expectations. Paradoxically, it may also make them feel insignificant and, as a result, have them hope for their leaders to fail. Whatever the explanation, mainstream U.S. society believes that

However, there is a second, complementary, image of the leader emerging in the historical and cultural sketches of U.S. leadership. It is an image that has always been part of the themes and tensions in U.S. society but that in today's changing information and global environment is receiving increasing attention—because it either has been ignored for too long or is needed more than ever (or both). It partly reflects aspects of additional expressions of the mythical hero, that is, the teacher, healer, and visionary (Arrien, 1992). It describes leaders as humble, empathetic, cooperative, communal, participative, and process oriented. Furthermore, it expects leaders to be more culturally sensitive and adaptive and more global in their outlook. Some of these additional expectations surface again in the remaining part of this chapter, in the quantitative and qualitative GLOBE data.

Perhaps more important, U.S. leadership theory and practice are beginning to move away from their overemphasis on the individual leader and to broaden their understanding of leadership as a process and organizational capacity that allow people to engage together to create and realize their shared sense of purpose as well as to express their democratic responsibility and will. Given the dynamic nature of U.S. society, and especially the dramatic shifts that are taking place around the world, additional models and practices will evolve. It is hoped that those will be enriched by cultures everywhere.

3.  QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE GLOBE RESULTS

This section of the chapter reports on the quantitative and qualitative GLOBE data in the following sequence. First, we summarize the findings along the nine cultural orientations to provide the backdrop against which the next part of the discussion on GLOBE's leadership scales can take place. We then describe the methodology and findings of the structured interviews, focus groups, and the media analysis. Throughout, we frequently link back to the insights from Sections 1 and 2 and provide selected appendices to supplement the findings.

U.S. Cultural Orientations: Etic Comparisons

The data for this Section were collected in late 1997 from 382 U.S. managers from three U.S. financial services, three food, and two telecommunications services industry companies, all of them under U.S. ownership and located in the United States. The managers were on average 44 years old, had an average of 14 years of managerial experience, and belonged in their vast majority to the middle to upper middle management of their company. About one third of them were women. (See Appendix A for more details.) The following discussion of the U.S. results on GLOBE's cultural scales is based on about one half of these managers (N = 188), who completed the Beta version of GLOBE's research questionnaire that asked respondents how “things are in your society” (“As Is”) and how “things generally should be in your society” (“Should Be”).

The discussion uses the definition and operationalization of the cultural scales, as described in the introductory chapter of this anthology and as applied in the other chapters of this book. They are society-level constructs that allow U.S. culture to be described in “cultural space,” that is, in comparison to other societies that are part of the GLOBE study. This is an important point to keep in mind, because the different or similar cultural preferences of the United States can best be highlighted by contrasting them with the rest of the countries in the study—or any given society at a time. This clearly constitutes an etic approach to understanding U.S. culture (Hofstede, 2001). Furthermore, it may also be helpful to remember, as we continuously link the findings back to the earlier discussion, that the results in this section are largely based on White male managers from corporate America.

Table 14.3 provides a numerical overview of U.S. society for the “Should Be” and “As Is” cultural scales. In addition to its scale means and standard deviations, it ranks the United States on each cultural scale among the 61 GLOBE countries.

Regarding its desirable or espoused societal norms (Should Be), the United States ranks highest on Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, and Performance Orientation and lowest on Institutional Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Future Orientation. A closer look helps deepen this observation. The T-scores, which represent standardized U.S. rankings against an overall “global norm” for each scale (Mean [M] = 50; Standard Deviation [SD] = 10), based on the grand mean of the GLOBE countries for each scale, show a significantly (difference of 1 SD or more) higher desire for more equality of opportunity between men and women in U.S. society (T = 61) and significantly greater preference for flexibility and openness to change (i.e., weak Uncertainty Avoidance; T = 41) and individual rewards or initiative (i.e., low Institutional Collectivism; T = 40) than in the other countries on the whole. There is also a comparably higher degree of preference for Assertiveness (T = 58).

At the same time, these preferences (“Should Be”) across the nine cultural scales do not completely match the U.S. managers’ perceptions of how things are (“As Is”). Compared to the rest of the countries studied, they observed, in particular, high degrees of competitive and aggressive behavior (high Assertiveness Orientation; T = 61) and marked emphasis on performance (T = 60), but low degrees of concern for or cohesiveness in their society's organizations and families (low In-Group Collectivism; T = 38) and relatively small power differentials among members of their society (small Power Distance; T = 43).

Table 14.4 provides further insights. It offers a comparison between the realities that the managers experience (“As Is”) and how they would like things to be (“Should Be”) and, once again, expresses those as standardized U.S. rankings against overall global norms for each scale. In addition, it lists the difference between U.S. “As Is” and “Should Be” mean scores for each scale and ranks those across the other countries.

TABLE 14.3
U.S. Means, Grand Means, Standard Deviations, T-Scores, and Ranges for “Should Be” and “As Is” Cultural Scales

^aN = 188 (respondents with missing data included). ^bN = 61 countries. In addition, rank group letters A–C (some scales have a group letter of D) indicate meaningful country clusters. A > B > C > D for each scale. ^cT-scores represent standardized U.S. rankings against overall global norms (M = 50, SD = 10), based on 61 countries (excluding Czech Republic). ^d1 SD or more below or above global norm.

Whereas the U.S. managers would prefer somewhat diminished stress on assertiveness and performance (even though still more than on average in the other countries), they definitely would like to see more attention paid to the needs of organizations and families (In-Group Collectivism), at least to catch up to the world (from T = 38 to T = 53). They also look for significantly more gender egalitarianism (in spite of the fact that their “As Is” score is close to the standardized mean for all countries in the study, T = 49) and for noticeably more power differentiation among the people of their society (from T = 43 to T = 53). In contrast, they would like U.S. society to become noticeably less rule driven (weak Uncertainty Avoidance; T = 41), less future oriented (T = 46), and more individualistic (low Institutional Collectivism; T = 40) than, on the whole, the managers in the other countries do.

Some caution is in order at this point not to overinterpret these desired changes in U.S. society. First of all, they may reflect some specific organizational dynamics in the eight corporations of this study. Second, they may mirror the specific needs of managers in middle to upper middle management positions. Perhaps, most important, they need to be understood against changes that managers worldwide desire, as those look at what is and what they would like to happen in their societies. Table 14.3 already hinted at this reality. For example, the U.S. mean scores for Performance Orientation suggest a marked increase between “what is” and “what should be” (x = 4.49 to x = 6.14). Yet, the size of this desired change ranks only 42 among the 61 countries and, in fact, results in the aforementioned wish for a slightly diminished emphasis on performance, when compared to the global norm (from a T-score of 60 to one of 56).

TABLE 14.4
Cultural Orientations—Differences Between “As Is” and “Should Be”

^aN = 188. ^bRank of U.S. difference scores across 61 countries. ^cT-scores represent standardized U.S. rankings against overall global norms (M =50, SD =10), based on 61 countries. Compared to other GLOBE countries, ←=noticeably less desirable than is; →=noticeably more desirable than is. ^d1 SD or more below or above the global norm.

Figure 14.1, based on the grand means and U.S. means from Table 14.3, helps visualize these dynamics. Four is the midpoint (“neither agree nor disagree”) of the 7-point Likert scale used in the GLOBE questionnaire. The managers from all 61 countries on the whole (in descending order of the magnitude of the shift from “As Is” to “Should Be”) would like their societies to place more emphasis on performance, the future, a kinder society (Humane Orientation), gender equalitarianism, their organizations and families’ needs (In-Group Collectivism), collective rewards and action (Institutional Collectivism), and provide more certainty, but would like them to greatly decrease inequality in power among their citizens and be somewhat less aggressive and competitive with one another. The U.S. managers agree with all but two of these desired shifts. As described earlier, they want fewer (not more) rules, regulations, and restrictions and greater stress on individual (not collective) rewards and action. In addition, even though they agree with the general direction of seven of the nine shifts that managers around the world would like to see, U.S. managers, relatively speaking, end up wanting their society to emphasize performance somewhat and the future markedly less and power distance a bit more (see Table 14.4).

Summing up, the U.S. respondents in this study, comparatively speaking, experience their society (As Is) as highly competitive, demanding, and performance-driven—and somewhat future oriented—but little concerned with the well-being of organizations and families and a little bit too much egalitarian (small Power Distance). In terms of the “ideal society” (Should Be), they desire a society that works toward much greater gender equalitarianism as well as the well-being of its organizations and families and creates some more deference and respect for its authorities and leadership (larger Power Distance). Similarly, they would like to see a greater emphasis placed on the present (less Future Orientation) and see innovation, flexibility, and individual initiative and achievement encouraged even more.

Figure 14.1. U.S. cultural profile (“Should Be” and “As Is” scales).

Although there are a few minor differences in preferences across the three industries (see Appendix B) and, for instance, findings that women tend to strive for greater gender egalitarianism and somewhat more tolerance for uncertainty and a greater emphasis on the present than men (see discussion in Section 4), this description is very similar to the one that emerged in the earlier parts of this chapter in the image of the U.S. leader as cultural hero. Aspects of it also surface in the structured interview, focus groups, and media analysis results to be discussed later. At this point, selected data, quotes, and references (i.e., emic expressions) deepen the understanding of this cultural profile of U.S. society.

U.S. Cultural Orientations: Emic Manifestations in American Society

Assertiveness Orientation. At the interpersonal level, being assertive in the United States tends to mean standing up for oneself, wanting to be counted, and exercising the right and the obligation to express one's opinions and needs—and to do so in a constructive and kind way that respects the other person's right to do the same. This encourages straightforward, direct, frank or, if unchecked, blunt exchanges among people. At the societal level, it reflects the highly (vertical) individualistic nature of U.S. society (Triandis, 1998) and a high concern for “mastery” (Schwartz, 1999), but when overdone, is seen as aggression, bullying, or an excessive concern with being “number one.” The GLOBE results suggest that, indeed, U.S. society is considered significantly more assertive than many other countries—and that it may overdo it. GLOBE's “As Is” scores also correlate significantly at the 0.5 level (Spearman rank) with results from Hofstede's IBM and Hoppe's study of European elites across 16 countries that the three studies have in common. The two latter studies used Hofstede's Masculinity dimension and showed the United States to be the seventh and third, respectively, most masculine country among the 17 countries that those two studies had in common (see Hoppe, 1998, p. 33).

In his book Understanding Global Cultures, Gannon captures the essence of U.S. culture in the metaphor of the American football game. He states that “competition seems to be more than a means to an end in the United States and apparently has become a major goal in itself” (Gannon, 1994, p. 308). The exhortation by the legendary football coach, Vince Lombardi (1995), that there is no room for second place makes the same point. George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees baseball team and former member of the U.S. Olympic Committee, puts it this way: “I want this team to win, I am obsessed with winning, with discipline, with achieving. That's what this country is all about” (cited in Boone, 1992, p. 113). During the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996 a Nike billboard announced, “You don't win the silver, you lose the gold.” It is no coincidence that all of these quotes come from the field of sports. As described earlier, sports play a dominant role in U.S. culture and sports language and concepts pervade its daily and business interactions.

Moreover, whoever has watched an American football game can attest to its fiercely aggressive nature. It is known as a “collision” sport as opposed to a “contact” sport, such as basketball. Another expression of this aggressive, tough, and domineering orientation in U.S. culture may be seen in its crime and imprisonment rates. Whatever the complex societal and cultural dynamics may be, the United States has a disproportionately much higher number of its citizens commit violent crimes and spend time in prison than any other comparable society in the world (Oxford Atlas of the World, 1994, p. 45).

In business, the strong propensity for assertiveness may express itself in working hard to be “number one,” a marked competitive drive to get ahead in one's career, a distinct imbalance between professional and personal life, a preference for decisive and forceful leaders, and a short-and-to-the-point communication style. The qualitative data from the structured interviews, focus groups, and the media analysis largely bear this out.

Future Orientation. As described earlier, the managers in this study, compared to those in the other 60 countries, describe U.S. society as placing relatively great emphasis on the future (T = 57 in Table 14.3), that is, planning ahead, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. On the other hand, though wanting society to be even more future-oriented in absolute terms, comparatively speaking, they would like it to be noticeably less so (T = 46). This expressed desire by the U.S. managers is more in line with the typical description of U.S. culture as rather short-term oriented—and as surfaced during the brief cultural sketch of U.S. society earlier. At the same time, it may be the constant changes in their work environment that may make them wish for an organizational and societal life that does not always require them to plan for and/or implement the next change (e.g., mergers, acquisitions, or organizational consolidation).

Seen through a cultural lens, Stewart and Bennett (1991) discuss Americans’ concept of time as “lineal,” that is, flowing from past to present to future, with a distinct preference for the present and the future (see also Trompenaars, 1994). They conclude that

Similarly, in Hofstede and Bond's (1988) study of 23 countries, the United States showed a relatively short-term orientation, emphasizing consumption and “keeping up with the Joneses” over thrift and long-term investments. This cultural propensity is most visible in a U.S. personal savings rate (as percentage of after-tax income) of minus 0.2% in July of 2000 (“Consumer Spending Tops,” 2000, p. B8) and the notorious quarterly reports that companies are asked to submit to their banks, stockholders, or the government.

The combination of U.S. culture seeing time as a resource that should not be wasted, the availability of increasingly sophisticated information technologies, and the accelerating speed of the global marketplace in which speed has become the competitive advantage will most likely reinforce a short-time mentality. Indeed, changes may occur so fast or be so complex that people begin to refuse to engage in activities that extend more than a few months or 2 to 3 years into the future. For example, historian D. Walter found that “students were reluctant to think about the future, a tendency he [also] sees in others” (Blangger, 1999, p. 1). Seen in this light, the U.S. managers in this study may have wished for a comparatively greater focus on the present as a reflection of the complex, sped-up environment in which they do their daily work.

Gender Egalitarianism. In ancient Greece, women were described as “incomplete men.” Only 80 years ago, women in the United States secured the right to vote. About 30 years ago, educational institutions in the United States were federally mandated to provide athletic programs for boys and girls (Title IX). In short, present U.S. society has come a long way in creating equal opportunities for boys and girls, men and women, to succeed. For instance, as mentioned earlier, almost half of today's U.S workforce are women and close to 45% hold executive, administrative, and managerial positions. Though still few of today's women occupy top positions in Fortune 500 companies, women currently own and run one third of all American businesses and “employ more people than the entire Fortune 500 list of America's largest companies combined” (Adler, 1999, p. 249). Also, about 4 out of 10 doctorate degrees are awarded to women, of those about 3 out of 10 in the field of business management and administrative services (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999); the U.S. women's soccer team was named team of the year in 1999; and programs of women's studies have become a regular part of academia.

Many more statistics paint a similar picture of great strides toward greater numbers of opportunities and successes for women. Others offer a different story. For example, on average women across occupational and educational groups earn only about 72% of what men of similar background and experience take home (“Household Income,” 2000; see also Roos & Gatta, 1999) and Fortune 1000 companies still have only about 10% women on their boards (American Demographics, 2000, p. 25). In the political arena, about the same percentage are women senators or Representatives in Congress (Sarin, 2003), even though their proportion is greater at the state level. Furthermore, the “great books” of the past tend to perpetuate masculine images of men and women (Rabinowitz & Richlin, 1993).

Overall, the movement toward more egalitarian treatment of men and women will continue. However, it may not automatically make U.S. culture less masculine; in fact, it may reinforce its high degree of cultural masculinity (Hofstede, 1991; Hoppe, 1998). In his reflections on the nature of feminism movements around the world, Hofstede observes that “the masculine form claims that more women should have the same possibilities as men have … [yet] simply having women work in the same numbers and jobs as men does not necessarily represent their liberation. It could be a double slavery, at work and in the home” (p. 102ff).

Humane Orientation. First-time visitors to the United States often comment on how friendly, open, and generous Americans are. Although there may be noticeable differences between urban and rural areas and north and south and east and west, it tends to be easy to quickly establish, at least superficially, a friendly exchange of information and/or personal history. It is a cultural characteristic that was partly formed early on in American history, when people moved westward and depended on each other for support and survival. It reflects a cultural value that encourages people to transcend their narrow interests “in favor of voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare of others” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 28).

Moreover, this cultural trait expresses itself on a deeper level, when disaster strikes an individual, neighborhood, or community, at home or abroad. This tends to generate a tremendous outpouring of genuine concern and compassion, supported by personal sacrifice and material assistance. Furthermore, it can bee seen in the results of a recent survey in which almost 60% of Americans said that it was very important for community life “for people to volunteer money and time to charitable organizations” (The National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, 2000, p. 1). In fact, for the year 2000 the total amount of charitable giving reached more than $190 billion (American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, 2000), encouraged by federal tax laws that allow individuals and organizations to lower their taxes through charitable contributions. About 80% of the contributions come from individuals.

Volunteering is an equally deeply ingrained part of the American social fabric. In 1995, more than 90 million Americans were involved in some kind of volunteer work, ranging from help in soup kitchens (to feed those in need), to Habitat for Humanity (to build homes for low-income families), to environmental preservation. Also, corporations routinely sponsor and help staff annual drives for the United Way campaign that raises money for a wide range of community-based, national, and international charitable institutions. They tend to consider it a civic duty—and encourage their employees as well—to contribute to the community in which they are located. Internationally, the U.S. Peace Corps for more than 40 years has been a visible symbol of the genuine American urge to help and to contribute to the greater good of the world community.

In-Group Collectivism. It may not be much of an exaggeration to assert that many Americans today experience their families and organizations to be under siege. As summarized in Table 14.4, the managers in this study seem to strongly agree with this observation (T = 38 for “As Is”) and would like their society to be closer to the global mean (T = 53 for “Should Be”). One possible explanation for this result may be that they feel caught in the middle of two strong dynamics that describe U.S. society today—the tremendous pressures on the family and the accelerated demands on and by the organizations in which they work.

To understand the family dynamic, it is important to move away from the traditional image of the family as consisting of a married couple with two or three children in which the father was employed outside of the home and the mother stayed at home to take care of the children. In 1998, only 53% of all households with children were headed by a married couple and about 16% by either a single man or woman. The remaining 31% of households were single-male or -female households (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, p. 873). Furthermore, about 10% of marriages each year end in divorce.

Moreover, in 53% of all married-couple families both spouses work (Consumer Reports, 2001, p. 8). In addition, about 6 out of 10 of all married women with children under the age of 6 are employed outside of the home. For single mothers or those from African American communities, the number increases to 7 or almost 8 out of 10, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, p. 417). Also, about 8 million men and women hold more than one job, half of them to meet regular household expenses, pay off debts, or save for the future (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, p. 421). In short, whether married or single, mothers and fathers in large numbers are trying to balance the multiple demands of holding down a job, providing financially for the needs of the family, taking care of their children, and having time for themselves and/or each other. This struggle applies equally to highly successful women in leadership roles (see Kantrowitz et al., 2005; Ruderman & Ohlott, 2002).

This juggling act is exacerbated by the fact that Americans, on average, spend annually between 1 and 3 months more time at work than any other highly economically developed country in the world (International Labor Organization, 1999; Robinson, 2003). Although this trend may be largely due to complex interactions among a number of variables, for example, the dynamics of the free-market system, a volatile labor market, the particular American work ethic, and the cultural propensities related to the strong assertiveness and performance orientation in U.S. society, it has been accelerated by the marked increase in corporate downsizing (i.e., massive job cuts) as an everyday management tool during the past 20 years. In the process, not only have entire layers of middle managers been losing their jobs, but also they have felt deeply betrayed by their companies. The “psychological contract” that they thought they had with their employers—good work and loyalty in return for long-term employment— has been replaced by a new understanding: “We keep you employed as long as your skills and expertise are needed in the changing fortunes of our company.”

This new psychological contract has left many of those who lost their job feeling bitter and disillusioned and those who survived the layoffs vulnerable, abused, and overworked. Noer (1993) speaks of the need for “healing the wounds” of the survivors to overcome the traumas of layoffs and to revitalize downsized organizations. In addition, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich observes that “survivors are working harder—that's feeding the whole work frenzy” (cited in McGinn & Naughton, 2001, p. 41). Most likely, globalization and fast-changing technologies, fueled by an economic, free-market mentality, will continue these pressures on companies and its employees to stay nimble and work long hours, respectively. Similarly, the resulting personal economic necessities and the changed nature of the American family will continue to exact its toll on people's time and sense of belonging. In short, pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in one's family and organization will be hard to come by.

Institutional Collectivism. The U.S. managers in this study confirm what many observers, scholars, and researchers of U.S. culture have maintained for more than the past 200 years. Americans believe that society should primarily encourage and reward individual achievements and actions as a means and an end toward the individual and the collective good alike. In the aforementioned studies by Hofstede and Hoppe (see Hoppe, 1998, p. 33), the United States was the most individualistic among 17 countries (Spearman rank correlation with “Should Be” scores across the 16 countries that all three studies had in common was .05 and .01, respectively). In the current one, it is the 9th most individualistic out of 61 countries (i.e., ranked 53 on Institutional Collectivism). The “As Is” scores for the United States are near the global norm (T = 49), but as discussed earlier the U.S. managers go against the global trend by desiring a slightly more individualistic orientation of U.S. society. In fact, comparatively speaking, they clearly want society to stress individual interests and freedom over those of the collectivity (Ts = 40).

In addition to the earlier discussion of individualistic expressions in U.S. life and leadership theory and practice, two observations may help deepen the understanding of this desire for individualism in the United States. The first relates to O'Toole's (1993) distinction between liberty (free market and free from government) and equality (equity and solidarity) in Table 14.1. Both values tend to be cherished in many countries around the world, but typically one is preferred over the other. For example, in a study of nine Western European countries, the respondents in most of them valued on average freedom (“everyone can live in freedom and develop without hindrance”) above equality (“nobody is underprivileged and social-class differences are not so strong”). However, when each country's preference for freedom was divided by its preference for equality, the resulting country scores significantly correlated with the individualism scores in Hofstede's IBM study. In other words, “the more individualist a country, the stronger its citizens’ preference for liberty over equality” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 72). It is a result that most likely also holds for the United States due to the latter's strong emphasis on individual freedom and initiative.

The second observation stresses the deeply ingrained and interconnected nature of individualism with the political, economic, and philosophical system of mainstream U.S. society (Behrman, 1988). Politically, current U.S. democracy is founded on the premise that only independent, well-informed (and existentially equal, i.e., small Power Distance) citizens, who feel that they have a stake in their community and society at large, can prevent the tyranny of a few. Economically, its embrace of the free-market system is predicated on the enlightened and vigorously pursued self-interest of individuals whose (ideally) free choices determine the flow of supply and demand. Philosophically (and theologically), it assumes free individuals who feel called upon and obliged, to the best of their abilities, to reach for “perfection” in the image of their God. To be sure, there are many shades and permutations of these basic beliefs throughout U.S. history (see Bellah et al., 1985). Furthermore, everyday realities often fail to reflect them. However, as widely espoused beliefs they exert a powerful influence on Americans’ images of the ideal person, leader, organization, and society at large, images that may be at odds with those in many other countries, as witnessed by the fact that 70% of the 61 GLOBE countries (economically poor and rich!) want their societies to be less individualistic.

Performance Orientation. Implicitly, this cultural scale is about outcomes and the action, effort, and execution to achieve them—terms that are highly valued in U.S. culture. Explicitly, it is about continuous improvement in individuals and organizations, challenging goals, and effective and innovative behaviors. Related values are facts, data, and measurement as the means of determining the desired and/or promised results. Within a historical and cultural context, this emphasis on performance may be seen as an equitable way of determining a person's standing and identity in a society that has moved away from using tribe, class, or family name to define its members. From an economic perspective, it points to a person's definition as an asset or resource whose value needs to be determined—the citizen as “economic man” (Bellah et al., 1985, p. 271). As a result, there is a heavy emphasis in U.S. culture on measurements of great variety, including national test scores for children in grade school, grade point averages in high school and college, SAT scores to get into college and, in the world of business, assessment centers for selection, performance appraisals and, of course, organizational data of all kinds.

In addition, bonus pay systems and awards to reward the top performers are common. For example, a company in New England gives each December the Extra Mile Award to several of its employees “who have gone above and beyond the call of duty” (Nelson, 2000, p. 43). In sports, there is the player of the week or, of longer-lasting recognition, the induction into the Hall of Fame. Another measure of success for Americans is to be included in the Who's Who in America. This attention to the “ceremonial celebration of perfection” is due to “the common belief in the United Sates … that the individual is capable of anything he or she wants to accomplish. Individual achievements, whether earning a degree or scoring the highest number of field goals for one game, are considered precious human deeds and are entitled to commemoration in one type of ceremony or another” (Gannon, 1994, p. 317).

Similarly, the common belief and exhortation that the “sky is the limit” has helped spawn a huge industry of self-improvement books. Books on any topic are available. In the area of leadership, for example, Covey's (1989) book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Leaders has become a runaway bestseller. Other publications, such as the earlier mentioned In Search of Excellence, its sequel, A Passion for Excellence (Peters & Austin, 1985), or Good to Great (Collins, 2001), tell of excellent companies and how to emulate their exemplary practices. Lou Gerstner (2001), CEO of IBM, proclaims, “We have a right to expect excellence” (p. 6). In more recent years, information technologies and globalization have greatly accelerated this trend.

Power Distance. U.S. culture is typically described as a very egalitarian society whose Constitution not only guarantees the existential equality of every man and woman, of whatever ethnic or national background, but in which people have come to expect that differences in status and power be minimized and hierarchical structures primarily express inequalities in roles established for convenience or efficiency's sake. Therefore, it seems to be somewhat surprising that in other large-scale empirical studies the United States, when compared to Western European countries, consistently shows larger hierarchical differences (i.e., Power Distance) than Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, as well as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland (Hofstede, 1980; Hoppe, 1998; Schwartz, 1999). The same holds for the “Should Be” scores in the current study. Also, once again, there exists a significant Spearman rank correlation (at the .01 level) between the “As Is” scores and the Hoppe and Hofstede studies (earlier discussion).

One of the explanations for this “surprise” may lie in the observation that Americans’ primary mode of distinguishing themselves is their own individual achievement, which makes them stand out and for which they expect tangible, visible rewards. In an organizational environment, the reward may be advancement into a managerial role that signifies the special talent and effort that one has shown and that creates a “legitimate” inequality between manager and employee that is expected to be honored and respected (power values in Schwartz, 1999). The result is the belief (see Section 1) in a “managerial prerogative” that (in combination with the romance of leadership in U.S. culture) is less open to participative management from the bottom up—an approach that is more often witnessed in the Northern European countries (Hofstede, 1991). It can be seen in the results that show U.S. respondents consider it less important to be consulted by their manager than those from the aforementioned countries (Hoppe, 1990, p. 225). It can also be observed in the willing acquisition and display of status symbols that come with higher organizational ranks, such as larger offices, cars, or membership privileges and other perquisites (see also Pfeffer, 1981).

A second explanation can be found in the particular version of U.S. capitalism, which has sided over time more than any other country with the demands and promises of the free market and the belief in the efficiency of big corporations (O'Toole, 1993; see also Table 14.1). As a result, the prerogative of capital, ownership, and property is largely taken for granted, as directly visible in U.S. society's support and protection of entrepreneurial activities (expression of the liberty theme) and indirectly in its admiration for the corporate manager who can be said to act as the guardian or representative of corporate ownership—be that ownership by individuals, groups, or stockholders (expression of the efficiency theme). In the latter case, managers are expected to run the organization as efficiently as possible and, in the process, protect and enhance the owners’ property and/or investments. Inherent in this approach is the notion of hierarchy, because “efficiency requires a division of labor; an orderly division requires a hierarchy based on ability; and people in a hierarchical system will be, by definition, stratified in classes” (O'Toole, 1993, p. 65). In sum, the combination of U.S. culture's emphasis on meritocracy, the sanctity of ownership, and its belief in the importance of efficiency, tends to translate into a managerial prerogative not practiced to the same degree in many Western European countries.

Uncertainty Avoidance. Experiencing and responding to uncertainty, ambiguity, and change with unknown outcomes are part of the human condition. The question is how emotionally comfortable people are in those circumstances and what they do to cope with the inherent unpredictability of their lives. At the societal level of analysis, U.S. society as a whole, more than most societies, accepts uncertainty and its resulting ambiguities and unpredictable changes as a natural part of life. Eric Sevareid, a former American news reporter and commentator, put it this way: “The most distinguished hallmark of the American society is and always has been change” (cited in Boone, 1992, p. 301).

As discussed before, American culture tends to be described as innovative, mobile, flexible, dynamic, and open to change and new experiences even when the outcomes are not predictable. The entrepreneur is idolized, because he or she does not give up despite setbacks and/or outright failure. The leader as heroic warrior is admired for their taking off for unchartered territory and willingly facing great risks without guarantee of a successful ending. Conflict, dissent, and competition are seen as potentially beneficial in spite of their inherently unpredictable outcomes. Overall, it is a description whose roots can be found in U.S. society's historical experience of people taking great risks to reach its shores and conquer its frontiers and a political and economic system that tends to encourage and reward those who dare.

Although this description is not mirrored in this study's “As Is” scores for the United States (T = 50), it is clearly the preferred state of affairs (T = 41), when compared to the global norm. That is, the U.S. managers of this study want society to become less rule-bound, whereas the other countries as a whole desire significantly more certainty in their lives. This finding is in line with results from the aforementioned studies by Hofstede and Hoppe. They significantly correlate with the “Should Be” scores (Spearman rank at the .05 and .01 level, respectively) and show U.S. society to be highly tolerant of uncertainty—yet, once again, not as much as, for example, Denmark and Sweden or Ireland and the United Kingdom.

An interesting expression of the United States's openness to change and acceptance of uncertainty as a normal part of life can be gleaned from reactions to major layoffs in the U.S. economy. A “striking feature is just how matter-of-factly—even happily—many elite workers are taking their ‘reduction in force’ notices … many workers have come to accept the risk of layoff as the price of admission to the New Economy” (McGinn & Naughton, 2001, p. 38). Adds a vice president of an outplacement firm: “It's almost a rite of passage … if you haven't lost at least one job in your career today, you haven't taken enough risk” (McGinn & Naughton, 2001, p. 38).

Although these reactions are in marked contrast to those just 10 years ago (see discussion of In-Group Collectivism) and possibly reflective of highly trained professionals in a thriving economy, they are indicative of an American mind-set that can look at a misfortune (e.g., being fired) as an opportunity for something better (e.g., a better job or more time for one's hobby or family). It is also symptomatic of a strong belief in progress and its accompanying general optimism toward the future. Similarly, it helps explain the widely accepted need for life-long learning and its requirements of “a high capacity for change and a high level of [emotional] comfort with that change” (Noer, 1997, p. 89).

In summary, when considered in their entirety, the U.S. results across all nine cultural orientations not surprisingly reinforce earlier descriptions of U.S. culture in Sections 1 and 2. More important, they largely paint a mirror image of the fundamental values and expressions of American democratic capitalism, thereby creating a most helpful backdrop against which mainstream U.S. leadership theory and practice may be understood.

In addition to the insights gained from the discussion of individualism, U.S.-style capitalism requires for its proper functioning not only largely unencumbered freedom for individuals and organizations to compete (weak Uncertainty Avoidance), but also the promise of tangible rewards, such as wealth or recognition, to encourage competition (strong Assertiveness Orientation). Similarly, it depends on measurable criteria and results to declare the winner of the competition, so that everybody understands and accepts the legitimacy of the victorious party (“legitimate inequality”/meritocracy; medium Power Distance). Implicit in all three requirements is an emphasis on performance, continuous improvement, and innovation (strong Performance Orientation) and a deliberate and focused approach to the task or challenge at hand to generate useful results in the foreseeable future (medium Future Orientation). Moreover, American democratic capitalism's long-term viability is fundamentally tied to the individual's moral obligation to seek wealth not only for personal use, but equally for the well-being of the community at large (medium-high Humane Orientation).

At the same time, due to its strong economically oriented philosophy, it subordinates its members’ lives to the demands of the market. As a result, individuals’ identities become defined in economic terms (e.g., as resources, assets, liabilities) and their families and organizations experience market-induced turbulence and fragmentation (weak In-group Collectivism “As Is”; medium “Should Be”). Similarly, gender equality tends to be narrowly measured either in terms of the degree to which girls and women have access to activities and jobs that were formerly “reserved” for boys and men or in terms of financial compensation (medium Gender Egalitarianism “As Is”; very high Gender Egalitarianism “Should Be”). Thus, by using the particular lens of U.S. society's form of democratic capitalism, it is possible to deepen the understanding of not only its cultural pattern, but simultaneously its inherent tensions and contradictions. Returning to Table 14.1, it also helps make apparent the strong pull that the values and themes in the left-hand column will continue to exert on U.S. culture's approach to leadership. The discussion returns to this overall portrait of American culture during the presentation of the leadership scales and the qualitative results of the study.

U.S. Results on Leadership Scales

The results in this section of the chapter are based on the total sample of 382 U.S. managers who responded to the 112 leadership items of the GLOBE instrument (Beta or Alpha version). The managers rated the instrument's 112 leader characteristics on a scale from 1 (“this behavior or characteristic greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader”) to 7 (“this behavior or characteristic contributes greatly to a person being an outstanding leader”). As with the cultural orientations, Table 14.5 provides a numerical summary of the results. Figure 14.2 is the visual representation of Table 14.5.

At first glance, managers around the world agree that for leaders to be seen as outstanding they need to have integrity, stress performance, and be inspirational and visionary (grand mean ratings above six). In contrast, they should not be malevolent, self-centered, autocratic, nonparticipative, and face savers (ratings below three). In addition, they like them to be team integrators, decisive, administratively competent, diplomatic, collaborative, and self-sacrificial (ratings between five and six) and not too autonomous, procedural, and conflict inducers (ratings below four).

Against this cross-cultural ground, the American managers consider it particularly important (top five) for outstanding leaders to have a performance orientation (T = 62), integrity (T = 61), humane orientation (T = 59), vision (T = 58), and inspiration (T = 58)—and also to a lesser degree to be modest (T = 56), decisive (T = 54), self-sacrificial (T = 54), and a team integrator (T = 54)—but to show very low (bottom five) autocratic (T = 37), nonparticipative (T = 37), status-conscious (T = 38), malevolent (T = 40), and conflict-inducing (T = 40) behaviors. That is, comparatively speaking and applying the specific behaviors that define each leadership scale, the U.S. managers of this study describe leaders as exceptionally good when they

TABLE 14.5
U.S. Means, Grand Means, Ranks, Standard Deviations, T-Scores, and Ranges for Leadership Scales

^aN = 382 (respondents with missing data excluded). ^bN = 60 (N = 61 including Iran, for Humane, Performance Orientation, and Visionary scales). In addition, rank group letters A–D indicate meaningful country clusters. A > B > C > D for each scale. ^cT-scores represent standardized U.S. rankings against overall global norms (M = 50, SD = 10), based on 61 countries. ^d1 SD or more below or above global norm.

Table 14.6 reinforces this profile. It offers summary results based on GLOBE's six second-order leadership scales. Here, the outstanding leader combines, in particular, a highly participative with a charismatic and humane set of personal characteristics.

Figure 14.2. U.S. cultural profile for leadership scales. N = 382 (respondents with missing data excluded).

The image of the outstanding leader that emerges from the leader scales is similar to earlier descriptions in this chapter, yet also different. As before, outstanding leaders are seen to have a vision, stress performance excellence, have integrity and convictions, and be decisive, egalitarian, flexible, and pragmatic in their approach to others and their work. However, U.S. managers also describe outstanding leaders as needing to be highly participative, tap into the inner passions of the people who work with them, truly care about them, and be less taken by and be preoccupied with themselves. That is, they do not solely create an image of the individual heroic warrior who is driven to succeed and stand out, but an image that stresses markedly more the organizational realities that work gets done together and that people need to feel important and taken seriously in their desire to grow and contribute (see also Manz & Sims, 2001).

TABLE 14.6
U.S. Means, Grand Means, Standard Deviations, T-Scores, and Ranges for Second-Order Leadership Scales

^a N = 382 (respondents with missing data excluded). ^b N = 61. In addition, rank group letters A–F indicate meaningful country clusters. A > B > C > E > F for each scale.^c T-scores represent standardized U.S. rankings against overall global norms (M = 50, SD = 10), based on 61 countries. ^d1 SD or more above global norm.

What may partly explain these added features of the outstanding leader are the earlier-discussed shifts toward a more process-oriented, cooperative, and participative leadership that today's world seems to be calling for. Also, anecdotally, the first author of the chapter observed a marked change over the past 14 years in the way managers, taking part in leader development activities, approach a competitive group exercise. In the past, the vast majority of the managers tried to have their individual contribution to be judged the best. For the past 10 or so years, participating managers attempt from the outset to develop mutually beneficial outcomes—although the exercise continues to call for individual contributions and remains competitive in nature.

Another plausible explanation has to do with the fact that the U.S. respondents in this study are middle to upper middle managers whose particular role as managers “in the middle” of their organizational environment necessitates that they be participative and sensitive to others’ needs. They may also have felt ignored too often in their own needs to have their passions engaged (see discussion of results of In-Group Collectivism). Furthermore, much of the earlier discussion referred to leaders anywhere in U.S. society, whereas the instructions for the leadership items specifically asked the respondents to think of “people in your organization or industry.” Thus, the additional characteristics of the outstanding leader that surfaced from the leadership scales may reflect this more organizational focus.

Appendix C provides additional insights, as it summarizes significant correlations between cultural orientations (“Should Be”) and the leadership scales. The four cultural scales that correlate most significantly with the leadership scales are Gender Egalitarianism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, and Future Orientation. For instance, importance for charismatic leadership and its subscales tend to highly correlate with a preference for gender egalitarianism, but negatively with power distance. The same applies to participative leadership. The latter also correlates strongly with a preference for tolerance for uncertainty and somewhat less with assertiveness and the present. In contrast, self-protective leadership seems to occur more in cultural environments with a preference for strong uncertainty avoidance, an emphasis on the long-term future, and inequality between men and women. Autonomous leadership, not surprisingly, strongly correlates with individualism and to a lesser degree with power distance. In short, U.S. culture with its comparatively strong preference for gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, performance, and tolerance for uncertainty and its medium emphasis on the future and power differential seems to encourage, in particular, a highly participative, charismatic, open, direct, and pragmatic leader style. On the other hand, a clear cultural preference for individualism in U.S. society (T= 40 for Institutional Collectivism) does not automatically translate into a clear preference for an autonomous, independent leader style (T = 47 and Rank 39 B for autonomous). This latter finding should caution against making direct connections between a country's cultural makeup and its desirable and/or practiced leadership style. There are many other variables—historical, religious, political, economic, or organizational—that play into this dynamic.

Qualitative Data: Structured Interviews, Focus Groups, and Media Analysis

These last sets of data were collected between late 1997 and early 1999. Specifically, the structured interviews were conducted with 16 (White) middle to upper middle managers (12 men and 4 women) between mid-November 1997 and early January 1998. The managers were taking part at the time in a leader development program at the Center for Creative Leadership and volunteered to be interviewed for an hour each on the first evening of the program. They were in their early 40s, worked in the private sector, and all but one were born in the United States (he was from the UK, but had lived in the United States and worked for an American company for the past 20 years). The first author and colleagues of his conducted the interviews by using the interview guide in Appendix D. The interviews were then coded with the help of a graduate student, using the 21 leader scales and their items as a guide. The results are listed in Table 14.7. They are based on 391 scorable observations and 102 different examples of leaders, three fourths of which were presidents or other high public figures (42%), direct superiors, other managers, or coworkers (17%), and corporate leaders (16%).

TABLE 14.7
Structured Interviews^a Summary of Outstanding Leader Characteristics

GLOBE Leadership Scales and Their Items	U.S. Ranksb	Frequency of Outstanding Leader (OL) Descriptions’1	Representative Quotes
Inspirational (enthusiastic, positive,* encouraging,* morale booster, motive arouser,* confidence builder,* dynamic,* motivational*)	12A	84×	…everybody began to feel like a hero working with her
			… genuinely cares about you and your personal goal
			… led tremendous amounts of people to do things that they were never really capable of doing by themselves
Visionary (foresight,* intellectually stimulating, future oriented, prepared, anticipatory, plans ahead,* inspirational, visionary, able to anticipate)	10 A	50×	… outstanding leaders [have] the vision and the ability to convey that to others
			… people who are trying to look forward to the future end up being the leader, because they had foresight
			… she absolutely saw a big picture … and she drew a picture of where we needed to be
Team Integrator (communicative,* team builder,* informed,* clear, integrator, coordinator,* not subdued)	26 A	43×	… he could take a very, very complex issue and truly communicate it to everybody around him
			… it is practicing what you preach
			… it was just mayhem … but … he was able to focus everyone
Integrity (honest,* sincere, just,* trustworthy*)	6A	35×	… had the gumption to stand up to the powers in a very large corporation
			… the obligation of leadership is when you see something good you support it no matter where it is
			… to treat others as you want to be treated, tell the truth, and do your best
Performance Orientation (improvement oriented, excellence oriented,* performance oriented)	3A	26×	… he expects nothing but excellence, nothing less
			… there has got to be a passion to get a little better every day
			… he demanded very high standards
Self-Sacrificial (risk taker, self-sacrificial, convincing)	19 B	25×	… they are committed to making what I consider sacrificial acts on behalf of others
			… outstanding are those that … continue to make the tough decisions now that there is a lot of risk involved
			… the ability to stand in the face of the crowd, if you will, under ridicule, under pressure
Decisive (willful, decisive,* logical, intuitive)	25 A	23×	… leader … is decisive, … firm, has compassion for people, … and is willing to make decisions
			… you have got to break some eggs and a great leader is one to make that decision
			… when he came to a decision, that was it, he would fight for it
Collaborative Team Oriented (group oriented, collaborative, loyal, consultative, mediator, fraternal)	40 B	22×	… we are going to win together, it's not just I
			… was willing to go in and fight for us
			… a leader is not afraid that some of their staff is better than they are
Humane (generous, compassionate)	11 A	16×	… they also convey to you that they care about you
			… if you don't have the human aspect, you can't sustain leadership
			… he never wanted to break you down in front of anyone else
Diplomatic (diplomatic, worldly, win/win problem solver,* intragroup conflict avoider, effective bargainer*)	33 A	llx	… to see the other point of view and pull two opposing views together
			… a general recognition and respect for each other's perspective
			… someone who is always sensitive to group dynamics
Modesty (modest, self-effacing, calm, patient)	22 A	7×	… they are humble. They know that they are not perfect
			… they remain very calm. They are steady
			… he is real down to earth
Administratively Competent (orderly, administratively skilled,* organized, good administrator)	44 B	7×	… outstanding leaders, I think, are very organized
			… if you don't carry a day timer you are not going to be here very long
			… he had … a track record … to believe … that he would get there

^aBased on 11 interviews with a total of 16 participants and 391 scorable observations. ^bBased on 61 countries. ^cAutocratic (12×) and Malevolent (10×) attracted the most descriptions for non outstanding leaders. Remaining leadership scales not separately listed due to low frequencies. ^* = Universally desirable leader characteristics.

Inspirational, visionary, team integrator, and integrity are clearly the most frequently mentioned outstanding leader characteristics, followed by being performance oriented, self-sacrificial, decisive, and collaborative. A closer look at the managers’ stories revealed a distinct longing for outstanding leaders to appreciate, respect, and deeply care for the dignity and humanity in the people with whom they work. Similarly, leaders were described as outstanding when they helped others grow or mentor them. Moreover, there was an admiration for those who genuinely tried to connect with people who are different from themselves and who encouraged people to freely express their different views, needs, or hopes and fears.

Two additional themes surfaced: the need for outstanding leaders to have great self-awareness, accompanied by a degree of vulnerability, and the importance of timing, luck, and circumstance for outstanding leaders to emerge. As one manager put it regarding the second theme, “I believe that what makes outstanding leaders is often the circumstances, fate, or whatever … there are a lot of competent managers that might have the potential to be outstanding leaders that don't ever get the opportunity.”

The total of 14 focus groups consisted of 94 middle to upper middle managers (76%), executives (18%), and professionals (6%) who participated in four leader development programs at the Center for Creative Leadership between early August and early October of 1998. Their average age was early 40s, 26% were women, about 10% were members of U.S. minorities, 6% were of different (non-U.S.) nationality, and 94% came from the corporate world.

As part of an exercise during the first morning of the program, they were asked to

After all characteristics, behaviors, and so on, were posted, small groups of six to eight participants were asked to discuss their results and agree after about 30 minutes on the six to eight descriptors that best captured outstanding leadership for them. The 14 groups generated a total of 387 characteristics, behaviors, and so forth, of which 137 (35.4%) were singled out as particularly descriptive of outstanding leadership. The results were coded in the same way as the structured interviews and are summarized in Table 14.8.

The findings are very similar to those from the structured interviews (Spearman rank at .01 level of significance). They also correlate significantly with the GLOBE rankings for the U.S. managers (.05). Collaborative team orientation is the sole leader scale that did not make the list of the most frequently mentioned leadership characteristics. Overall, inspirational and visionary leaders who show integrity and are team oriented receive the clear majority of the outstanding leadership designations (64%). Compared to the quantitative leadership results, the emphasis on performance excellence is, as in the structured interviews, less pronounced, yet remains among the more frequently cited outstanding leader characteristics.

TABLE 14.8
Focus Groups—Summary of Outstanding Leader Characteristics^a

GLOBE Leadership Scales and Their Items	U.S. Ranksb	Frequency of Outstanding Leader (OL) Designations	Examples of OL Characteristics by Members of Focus Groups
Inspirational" (enthusiastic, positive,* encouraging,* morale booster, motive arouser,* confidence builder,* dynamic,* motivational*)	12A	30×[61]d	passionate, seeks buy-in, infectious, enthusiasm, motivator, committed, supportive, praise, nurturing, builds confidence
Integrity (honest,* sincere, just,* trustworthy*)	6A	22 × [24]	trustworthy, genuine, principled, fair, ethical, moral, respectful, respected, credibility
Visionary (foresight,* intellectually stimulating, future oriented, prepared, anticipatory, plans ahead,* inspirational, visionary, able to anticipate)	10 A	18×[16]	visionary, clear direction, sense of purpose, strategic, facilitates ideas, planning
Team Integrator (communicative,* team builder,* informed,* clear, integrator, coordinator,* not subdued)	26 A	17 × [33]	creates teamwork, goes to bat for team members, communicates frequently, two-way communication, motivates team, listens, ability to build groups, cohesiveness
Self-Sacrificial (risk taker, self-sacrificial, convincing)	19 B	15 × [37]	opportunity seeker, initiative, risk taker, agent of change, courageous, leads by example
Performance Orientation (improvement oriented, excellence oriented, performance oriented)	3A	13 × [20]	commitment to excellence, sets high standards, focus on end results, accountable, emphasis on success
Decisive (willful, decisive,* logical, intuitive)	25 A	6×[6]	decisive, decision maker, focused, strong personality
Modesty (modest, self-effacing, calm, patient)	22 A	5 × [12]	patience, emotional consistency, relaxed
Humane (generous, compassionate)	11 A	5 × [12]	compassionate, caring, empathy, humane
Diplomatic (diplomatic, worldly, win/win problem solver,* intragroup conflict avoider, effective bargainer)	33 A	lx[3]	judgement, consensus builder, recognizes and resolves conflict
Misc. Characteristics		[16]	knowledgeable, experience, personality suited to task, values balance of work and personal life, creating safe environment, early wins

^a387 scorable observations. 137 (35.4%) designated as OL (i.e., Outstanding Leader). ^bBased on 61 countries. ^cAttracted 5 additional designations of “empowerment” (plus 10non-OL). ^dIn bracket, listed as characteristics of outstanding leaders, but not specifically designated as “OL” * = Universally desirable leader characteristics.

The data for the media analysis were collected between early and mid-December 1998 (Week 1 set of articles) and mid- to late February 1999 (Week 2 set of articles). They came from The New York Times (30), USA Today (30), The Wall Street Journal (26), Time magazine (10), and Business Week (10) for a total of 106 articles. The articles were selected from a broad spectrum of topics, such as politics, business, sports, and entertainment, that covered individual leaders, but also organizational change, developments in technology, globalization, political events, and so forth. An attempt was made to not a priori limit the portrayal of leadership to the individual leader, but include the broader context in which leadership is embedded. A total of 2,546 (leadership-related) observations were distilled from the 106 articles, coded by a graduate student and, separately, by the first author, and then grouped according to the GLOBE leadership scales and other categories that are presented later. The results for the leadership scales are summarized in Table 14.9. They are based on a total of 505 statements of individual leadership characteristics.

The results largely mirror the findings from the structured interviews and focus groups. Performance orientation, sacrificial, inspirational and visionary leadership, decisiveness, and integrity are the characteristics that are most frequently used to describe outstanding leaders in U.S. society, with performance orientation and self-sacrificial attributes, such as taking risks, taking bold steps, or succeeding through repeated trial and error, being emphasized more and integrity somewhat less than in the other two analyses. Diplomatic is also consistently mentioned across the three data sources. In contrast, leadership expressed as being a team integrator did not make the top-10 list at all. Overall, however, the similarities across the qualitative data are more striking than the differences. Appendix E supports this conclusion across all four qualitative and quantitative analyses of the individual leader characteristics.

Table 14.10 below summarizes the frequencies with which the media articles reflect U.S. society's preferences across GLOBE's nine cultural orientations. The image that emerges is a society that stresses performance, change, and competition. In combination with information from Appendixes F and G, which rank order major themes and most frequently used terms in the articles, it reinforces the earlier observation that the needs and preoccupations of American-style capitalism (and language!) greatly impact U.S. leadership thought and practice. In this fast-changing environment, all individuals are expected to take risks, compete hard and smart, and excel to achieve tangible results, such as profits, market growth/share, and/or customer loyalty, in the short- to medium-range future.

This type of environment may help explain why self-sacrificial leadership was ranked higher in the media analysis than in the other two qualitative analyses, and significantly higher than in the questionnaire-based findings (see Appendix E). The media analysis illuminates the vagaries of today's environment in which leadership expresses itself, the other three analyses more likely the organizational context in which the respondents worked. The former may be reflected in the markedly greater wish for tolerance of uncertainty (“Should Be” score T = 41); the latter in the almost 1 SD higher “As Is” score (T = 50) for Uncertainty Avoidance in Table 14.3.

Summing up the results of the qualitative analyses, it is conceivable that other major U.S. newspapers and magazines might have surfaced somewhat different images of American society and characteristics of the outstanding leader. However, those included in this analysis are clearly from mainstream publications that mirror mainstream U.S. culture. Similarly, it is possible that different respondents than those who took part in leader development programs at the Center for Creative Leadership might have generated somewhat different perceptions of the outstanding leader in the structured interviews and focus groups, respectively. However, the results across the three qualitative analyses are strikingly similar. Moreover, they are largely consistent with the previous discussion of U.S. leadership thought and practice. At the same time, they expand and deepen it. Thus, outstanding leaders are additionally seen as able to

TABLE 14.9
Media Analysis: Top 10 Frequencies of Individual Leader Characteristics^a

1. Performance Orientation (e.g., improvement oriented, excellence oriented, performance oriented, plus: persistence, drive, cutting edge, high standards, staying competitive)	(15.2%)
2. Self-Sacrificial (e.g., risk taker, self-sacrificial, convincing, plus: courage, standing up for his or her beliefs, learning from mistakes, bold steps, taking advantage of opportunities)	(13.9%)
3. Inspirational (e.g., enthusiastic, positive, encouraging, dynamic, motivational, plus: giving hope, encouraging others, exciting, imitated by others, catalyst)	(12.1%)
4. Visionary (e.g., foresight, intellectually stimulating, future oriented, plans ahead, visionary, plus: having a business plan, long-term goal, strategic plan, making priorities, having a master plan)	(9.7%)
5. Decisive (e.g., willful, decisive, logical, intuitive, plus: assertive, making quick decisions, firm, exerts his or her authority, swift action, determined)	(8.1%)
6. Integrity (e.g., honest, sincere, just, trustworthy, plus: respected, reliable, fair, trust, consistent, telling the truth, role model)	(5.7%)
7. Procedural (reversed) (e.g., flexible, informal, situational, plus: pragmatic, responsive, being nimble, quick, adjusts)	(4.2%)
8. Collaborative Team Oriented (e.g., collaborative, loyal, consultative, group oriented, plus: shared purpose, getting input, teamwork, open door, learning from others)	(4.0%)
9. Diplomatic (e.g., diplomatic, worldly, win-win problem solver, effective bargainer, plus: smart negotiation, building alliance, peace maker)	(3.8%)
10. Autonomous (e.g., individualistic, independent, unique, plus: brilliant, guru, own style, has his or her own way, making his or her own decisions, self-styled)	(3.8%)

Note. Additional ranks 11. Self-Centered (reversed); 12. Administratively Competent; 13. Malevolent (reversed); 14. Face Saver (reversed); 15. Modesty.
^aBased on 505 individual leader characteristics statements (out of 1,648) in Business Week, 12/1999; The New York Times, 12/9–11/1998 and 2/15–19/1999; and The Wall Street Journal, 12/9–11/1998 and 2/16–19/1999. Statements from USA Today and Time magazine were inadvertently excluded.

TABLE 14.10
Media Analysis Most Frequently (Explicit and Implicit) Referenced Cultural Orientations^a

1. Performance Orientation (e.g., improve performance, setting high goals, striving for excellence, cost reduction, persistence)	(14%)
2. Uncertainty Avoidance, reversed (e.g., change, innovation, risk-taking, breaking the rules, restructuring, flexibility)	(13%)
3. Assertiveness (e.g., domineering, aggressive, being number one, being competitive)	(11%)
4. Future Orientation (e.g., long-term, prepared, forecasting, vision, establishing a plan)	(4%)
5. Institutional Collectivism, reversed (e.g., brilliant, magna cum laude, standing up/out, vocal, causing a stir)	(2%)
6. Power Distance, reversed (e.g., informality, unconventional, accessible, getting input, encourages others to speak their mind)	(1%)

Note. Gender Egalitarianism, Humane Orientation, and In-Group Collectivism did not generate sufficient frequencies to be listed separately.
^aBased on total of 2,546 statements from 106 articles (see sources of media analysis).

As pointed out after the presentation of the quantitative leadership results, this creates once again an image of the outstanding leader that includes but also goes beyond that of the individual heroic warrior who is primarily motivated by his or her own needs and values and is driven to succeed and leave behind a legacy. It is an image that highlights the needs and aspirations of those affected by the leader's actions as well and that may be closer to the realities of organizational life than the public's image of the individual heroic warrior may suggest.

4.  INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The major task of this chapter has been to surface major explicit and implicit images and perceptions of leadership in U.S. culture. This was done in Section 1 through brief discussions of the historical context from which they emerged, well-known American cultural patterns that continue to shape them, and outstanding characteristics of prominent past and present leaders. In addition, a selective overview of the leadership literature in Section 2 provided insights into the particular definitions and preoccupations of U.S. leadership thought and practice. This led to the identification of approaches to leadership yet at the fringes of mainstream thinking. Section 2 concluded with a description of the leader as heroic warrior as the preeminent image of the outstanding leader in U.S. society. A similar, yet also different, image of leadership surfaced in Section 3 when U.S. society was placed in “cultural space” along GLOBE's nine cultural dimensions and its 21 (and six second-order) leadership scales, using quantitative as well as qualitative data.

In the remaining part of the chapter, we first provide a snapshot of 10 key U.S. leader characteristics, culled from the previous discussions, to use them as springboard from which to offer selected advice to those from foreign soil who find themselves working with Americans at home or abroad. We then take a brief look at the assets and potential liabilities of mainstream U.S. leadership thought and practice in a changing world and highlight limitations of the study and possible directions for future leadership research.

Summary Profile of the “Ideal Leader” in U.S. Society: Considerations for Leaders Everywhere

When condensed to 10 major characteristics and highlighted against images of outstanding leaders in the other 60 GLOBE countries, exceptional leaders in mainstream U.S. society

It is apparent from the other chapters in this volume and GLOBE's overall findings (House et al., 2004) that societies around the world look for these same leader characteristics to varying degrees. Some of them, such as those belonging to the Anglo or the Nordic and Germanic Europe cluster, desire them more; others, for instance, from the Middle East or Confucian Asia cluster, seek them less. That is, an important first step for anyone who finds him- or herself working with someone from another culture it is to gain a deeper understanding of the other person's “culturally acquired implicit and explicit leadership theory and practice” and of his or her own. Only by reflecting on both of them and actively trying to understand each other's will the similarities and differences come into focus. Only by striving for greater insights into the other's workplace and the broader societal context in which it is embedded will the similarities and differences begin to make sense. Only by improving one's cultural adaptability and perspective-taking skills will cross-cultural effectiveness ensue.

A fruitful second step is to realize that the aforementioned profile of the leader in U.S. society is a cultural stereotype that needs to be treated as a provisional stereotype—not only because cultures change some of their expectations and practices over time, but also because the United States is culturally rather heterogeneous. At the Center of Creative Leadership, the first author uses the term of the “roving anthropologist” to convey the notion that it is essential to continuously check one's own cultural assumptions and keenly and repeatedly assess, hypothesize, and act (AHA principle) when entering and working in a new cultural environment. As Germanic cultures tend to say, “The devil is in the detail” (in the United States, it is said at times that “God is in the detail”). Whatever the case may be, things are not always what they appear to be and often seemingly clear similarities in expected leader behaviors may lead to the greatest misunderstandings and/or conflicts. For example, leaders worldwide are expected to be decisive. However, “decisive” may mean in the United States being “quick and approximate,” while in France being “deliberate and precise” and in Japan “consensual and long-term” (see Hoppe, 2004). Similarly, “just” is also seen as a universally desirable leader characteristic. Yet, just may mean in the United States “in accordance with the law or fair” whereas in Mexico “in accordance with my family's or friends’ needs.”

Beyond these more generic first two suggestions, the third one has to do with the aforementioned observations that American men and women in leadership roles tend to show a strong desire toward action, execution, and getting results. It's a propensity that Yeung and Ready (1995) empirically corroborated in their eight-nations study in which U.S. managers considered “get results-manage strategy to action” the most important leader capability, much more so than managers from France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Although this tendency nurtures a “can-do, problem-solving, and just-do-it” approach, it also invites an emphasis on work and career over personal and family life, task over relationship, competition over collaboration. It furthermore tends to encourage a short planning (and quick-to-market approach) and a resulting longer implementation phase during which deficiencies of the new product or service need to be addressed. Men and women from countries such as Denmark, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, or Sweden need to come to terms with this underlying dynamic in U.S. life, as they work with American men and women at home or abroad.

The final suggestion is based on experiences by the first author over the past 30 years working with participants in leadership roles from all over the world. It is informed by statements that more frequently could be heard from U.S. participants than from any other cultural group, such as “if it is to be, it's up to me”; “make the best of it”; “luck's got nothing to do with it”; “nobody owes me anything”; “I am responsible for my own happiness”; “it's gonna work”; or “if I won't succeed the first time, I'll try again.” These expressions of self-agency, positive thinking, and optimism often served up additional energy among the people working together and resulted in a positively charged self-fulfilling prophecy of their activities. Others not infrequently labeled this American spirit as naive, innocent, or ignorant. However, could it not be offered as an antidote to men and women from cultures in which much is invested and expected from the “system,” whether the system is the government, the organization, or the family? Stated differently, couldn't a combination of self-agency, positive thinking, and optimism and systems thinking, realism, and a concern for the greater good be the more powerful elixir for effective leadership everywhere?

Assets and Potential Liabilities of U.S. Leadership Thought and Practice in a Changing World

It is clear that the aforementioned profile of 10 key U.S. leader characteristics may contain additional lessons for people in leadership roles from around the world who want to be successful in today's fast-changing and increasingly global environment. For example, U.S. leadership's openness to change, its willingness to take risks and try new things, its pragmatic mentality, and its desire to excel in order to achieve tangible results may serve others well, too. Its sense of urgency, its competitive spirit and determination, and its ability to engage the talents and energies of its people may provide them with critical ingredients for success. Its democratic ideals, support of others, and sense of fair play may help them garner greater trust.

Of course, this profile of U.S. leader characteristics constitutes an ideal that may be more in people's head than “real,” as the differences between the “Should Be” and “As Is” results of the cultural orientations attest. Also, its characteristics may turn into stumbling blocks when not adjusted to the ever-changing and diverse world or turn into liabilities when overdone. For example, when not properly calibrated, the drive for change may rob people of their need for some stability and undermine their sense of belonging and loyalty in their organizations and communities. Or, when overdone, a healthy competitive spirit may turn into winning by all means at the expense of solidarity and empathy with others (Kohn, 1993). In particular, the emphasis on the individual leader who is expected to make the difference in people's and organizations’ lives is beginning to show its limitations, as markets have become more global, and assuring the sustainability of planet Earth, in its complexity and long-term implications, requires noticeably more organizational and institutional collaboration (Friedman, 2005; Lodge, 1995).

This over emphasis on the individual leader (and other potential liabilities of leadership thought and practice in U.S. society) has come into sharper focus, as U.S. leadership thought and practice over the past few decades increasingly came into contact with markedly different cultures and the field of intercultural management established itself. For example, looking at the world at large, Hofstede observes, “Collectivism is the rule in our world and individualism the exception” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 54). Similarly, anthropological studies and developments in physics, biology, and computer technologies have led to the realization that the Western world's view of the “self-contained individual” (here, the individual leader) is rather peculiar and predisposes it to commit the “subjectivist fallacy” (Bond, 2000; Sampson, 2000). Or, as Candide in Leonard Bernstein's musical of the same name laments, “It must be me; it must be me.”

These are not abstract ruminations. For example, whenever U.S. participants during an exercise in the lead author's leader development work are asked to first describe critical leader characteristics and then their work environment with its typical challenges and opportunities, they tend to end up in a telling dilemma. Inevitably, as a group, they describe a leader who has the aforementioned 10 (or more) characteristics. Inevitably, they also admit that they haven't met anyone yet who had all of those characteristics. Then, when asked to describe the daily realities of their workplace, they speak of great volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, and rapid change. Yet, inevitably, the vast majority of them continues to insist that “if there were just that great (heroic) leader, things would be better”—forgetting that today's complex and ever-changing challenges and opportunities are beyond any single person's grasp and abilities and that much of their daily work is already characterized by significant collaboration among them—and their organizations and governments.

Moreover, as discussed in Section 2, the a priori definition of leadership as individual leadership tends to call forth an image of the leader as a hero and savior, someone who is ascribed superhuman attributes and who carries the hopes and fears of others. Whereas the adulation of the leader as hero may play a useful role in any society by inspiring people to make sacrifices for themselves and others, it tends to undermine the basic requirements of a democratic society whose well-being depends on the active involvement of the majority of its members. Is it not much more tempting to leave things up to those who, by default or design, occupy leadership roles? Similarly damaging, it may diminish the sense of worth, personal power, and human dignity that people feel about themselves, when the leaders as heroes occupy the few pedestals that society makes available. Is it not all too human to feel inferior when looking up to these “superhuman” leaders? At its worst, the strong belief in the heroic individual leader, when left unexamined, may lead others astray. Building on a quote by a participant from the structured interviews, “He [the manager] was able to get the staff … to walk on water for him; they would do anything for him.” What if what that “charismatic” manager wanted them to do was unethical or immoral? History is full of examples of this kind.

This brief discussion about potential pitfalls of U.S. society's preoccupation with the (heroic) individual leader is embedded in a larger issue. The American romance of leadership on the whole tends to favor social science over politics, psychology over sociology, behavior over structure, data over values (Behrman, 1988; Hofstede, 1993; Lessem & Neubauer, 1994). Comparatively speaking, this is not a minor matter, because many countries around the world express a greater need and/or preference for positional, structural, or systemic leadership. Also, the term leadership may not even exist or have very different meanings around the world (Dorfman, 1996), as witnessed by the French's struggle trying to differentiate between leadership and governance. Perhaps even more important, this tendency is of no little consequence within U.S. society either, as the country's problems come to be seen to “stem not from evaded issues of injustice or inequality but from technically faulty administration [i.e., leadership]” (DeMott, 1993, p. 72).

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

The GLOBE study as a whole deserves great credit for attempting to develop an empirically based theory of leadership to help predict the effectiveness of leader and organizational practices in different cultures and, from the outset, embedding its theorizing in data from a wide range of cultures and a set of empirically derived cultural dimensions. By asserting the importance of the cultural context in the understanding of leadership, it is also praiseworthy for implicitly reaffirming the critical role of so-called followership, that is, that “leadership is in the eye of the beholders” (Mintzberg, 2003, p. 10). In addition, and aside from the gargantuan efforts of its key contributors, sustaining the study for more than a decade (and counting) and building up a network of 170 plus scholars from around the world are achievements by themselves. Alas, as with every study large or small, there are research aspects that one would have wished to have done, forget to do, and/or deliberately decided not to do. Here are some that the authors wished to have seen or to see in the future.

The first concerns the overall research methodology of the GLOBE leadership questionnaire that a priori invited a definition of leadership as something that an individual does. As this chapter has shown, this introduced a Western and trait-based bias as well as an influence model of leadership that prevented other notions of leadership to come to the fore. If effective leadership is the capacity for carrying out the leadership tasks of setting direction, creating alignment, gaining and maintaining commitment, and facing and resolving adaptive challenges (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2003), then leadership can also be seen as residing in an organization or community as a whole, manifested in its set of competencies, its shared vision and/or passion(s), its structure, and/or culture. This would require studying entire systems, from groups to societies, for expressions of leadership. Similarly, it would call for paying attention to the interconnections between and among people, groups, institutions, and/or functions.

The choice of respondents could be considered a second limitation. The vast majority (90%) were middle managers who had an average of 14 years of managerial experience (for more information, see Appendix A). In some sense, it was a good choice because, as employees in the middle of the organization, they experience themselves as leaders and followers. They were also reasonably well matched across the societies of the entire GLOBE study, coming from the same three for-profit industries. Yet, a managerial bias in their perspective is not unlikely. If one agrees that leadership is in the eye of the beholder, then it would be helpful to learn more about the values, beliefs, and expectations of those not in leadership roles—in particular, as the U.S. workforce has become increasingly diverse (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). In the same vein, more than two thirds of the U.S. respondents were men. As Appendix H shows, there are some significant differences in cultural norms and leader characteristics that men and women desire. Could this suggest that by relying too much on data from men, who also hold managerial roles and come from the corporate world, the study of leadership across cultures perpetuates a male-dominated image of the leader and the process of leadership? It is a question that needs to be addressed more diligently in future leadership studies.

A definite strength of this study is its combination of different methods, quantitative and qualitative data, and lenses on the past and present that create a mutually reinforcing image of leadership in the United States. Yet, most of the data are still based on surveys, interviews, national statistics, or secondary analyses. What remains missing are complementary data that are collected on site, in real life and leadership situations, and based on actual behaviors— data along Mintzberg's (1973) question of what managers really do, Collins's (2001) work on what makes organizations great, or d'Iribarne's (1994) comparative study of three manufacturing plants of a French aluminum company. These types of data may not only help narrow the often-observed gap between actual and espoused values and beliefs, but also provide nonlaboratory data that more fully capture the complexities and realities of today's leadership challenges and effective approaches.

Last but not least, great benefits may be derived from “de-psychologizing” the study of leadership by more vigorously studying the broader contexts in which individuals, groups, and institutions try to succeed in their leadership tasks, be that their economic, political, cultural, environmental, or historical circumstances. It may turn out that leadership, as largely understood and studied in the United States, is but one variable in the total equation of determining people's quality of life and the well-being of the planet earth, perhaps not even the most critical one.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first author would like to thank for their invaluable assistance Denise Craig, Thomas Engel, Stefan Fazekas, Robert Kaiser, Steffen Obst, Philip Ruerup, Andreas Voigt, Katja Weissbach, and many other colleagues at the Center for Creative Leadership.

The second author acknowledges the summer support provided by the Folgeman College of Business that enabled him to complete work on this chapter. Appreciation is also expressed to Zhenyu Huang, Pamela Dembla, and Karen Moustafa for their assistance.

Apologies to all other Americans, north and south and east and west of the United States of America. The term American is used, at times, to help with the flow of the writing, not to expropriate it from other Americans.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1999). Global leaders: Women of influence. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 239–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel. (2000, May 24). Total giving reaches $190.16 billion as charitable contributions increase $15.80 billion in 1999. Retrieved September 27, 2000, from http://www.aafrc.org/News.HTM

American Demographics. (2000, February). Up the corporate ladder (p. 25) Available at http://www.demographics.com

Arrien, A. (1993). The four-fold way: Walking the paths of the warrior, teacher, healer and visionary. San Francisco: Harper.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Behrman, J. N. (1988). Essays on ethics in business and the professions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. N., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Perennial Library.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social structure of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday (Anchor Books).

Berry, N. (1993). What is our common sense of leadership? Firethorn Quarterly, 1, 1–2.

Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1981). The one-minute manager. New York: Morrow.

Blangger, T. (1999, December 12). Student hesitancy about the future in stark contrast to that of our fearless forebears. The Morning Call Newspaper Company. Retrieved September 28, 2000, from http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Bond, M. H. (2000, November). A declaration of independence for editing an international Journal of Cross-Cultural Management. Unpublished manuscript, Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Boone, L. E. (1992). Succeeding in a competitive world. New York: Random House.

Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). “Re-Viewing” gender, leadership, and managerial behavior. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 233–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179–204). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Campbell, J. (1973). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cavanagh, G. F. (1984). American business values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York: HarperCollins.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last. New York: HarperCollins.

Consumer Reports. (2001, January). Des Moines, IA.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dalton, M., Ernst, C., Deal, J. & Leslie, J. (2002). Success for the new global manager: How to work across distances, countries, and cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeMott, B. (1993). Choice academic pork: Inside the leadership-studies racket. Harper's Magazine (pp. 61–77). New York: The Harper's Magazine Foundation.

d'Iribarne, P. (1994). The honor principle in the bureaucratic phenomenon. Organization Studies, 15, 81–97.

Dorfman, P. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (pp. 267–349). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.

Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drath, W. H. (1996). Changing our minds about leadership. Issues & Observations, 16(1), 1–4. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

Drath, W. H. (2003). Leading together: Complex challenges require a new approach. Leadership in Action, 23(1), 3–7.

Faludi, S. (1999). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man. New York: Morrow.

Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Gannon, M. J. (1994). Understanding global cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geertz, C. (1979). From the native's point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In P. Rabinow & W. M. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 225–241). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gergen, K. J. (1996). Psychological science in cultural context. American Psychologist, 51(5), 496–503.

Gerstner, L. (2001). Expectation of excellence: We have a right to expect excellence. Executive Excellence, 18(2), 6.

Gilgoff, D. (2005, October 31). America's best leaders. U.S. News & World Report, 139(16), 18–91.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Halman, L., & de Moor, R. (1993). Religion, churches and moral values. In P. Ester, L. Halman, & R. de Moor (Eds.), The individualizing society: Value change in Europe and North America (pp. 37–65). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion. New York: Doubleday.

Hofstadter, R. (1969). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Knopf.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 8(1), 81–94.

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

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.

Hofstede, G., & Kassem, M. (1976). European contributions to organization theory. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management training and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Hoppe, M. H. (1993). The effects of national culture on the theory and practice of managing R&D professionals abroad. R & D Management, 23(4), 313–325.

Hoppe, M. H. (1998). Validating the masculinity/femininity dimension on elites from 19 countries. In G. Hofstede (Eds.), Masculinity and Femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (pp. 29–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoppe, M. H. (2004). Cross-cultural issues in leader development. In C. D. McCauley & E. van Velsor (Eds.), Handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 331–360). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473.

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

Household income hits all-time high. (2000, September 27). USA Today.

Hubbell, L. (1990). The relevance of the heroic myths to leadership development. American Review of Public Administration, 20, 139–154.

Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1982). Toward a macro-oriented model of leadership: An odyssey. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 196–221). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

International Labor Organization. (1999, September). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

Johnson, P. (1997). A history of the American people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jung, B. (1997). Meeting the new world—influence of globalization and information technology on leadership. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

Kantrowitz, B. (2005, October 24). How women lead: 20 of America's most powerful women on their lives – and the lessons they've learned. Newsweek, 146(17), 46–76.

Kellerman, B. (1984). Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142–148.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Kousnes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leeming, D. A.(1981). Mythology: The voyage of the hero (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Leiberson, S., & O'Conner, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37, 117–130.

Leslie, J. B., & van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: Europe and the United States. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Lessem, R., & Neubauer, F. (1994). European management systems: Towards unity out of cultural diversity. London: McGraw-Hill.

Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2000). The cluetrain manifesto: The end of business as usual. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Lodge, G. (1995). Managing globalization in the age of interdependence. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Lombardi, V. (1995). In Estate of Vince Lombardi. Indianapolis, IN: CMG World Wide.

Maier, M. (1999). On the gendered substructure of organization: Dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 69–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Maynard, H. B., & Mehrtens, S. E. (1993). The Fourth Wave: Business in the 21st century. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

McCauley, C. D., & van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of leadership development (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGinn, D., & Naughton, K. (2001, February 5). How safe is your job? Newsweek, 137(6), 36–43.

Meindl, J. R. (1993). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 89–118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.

Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede's dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 31,(3), 283–301.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper Collins.

Mintzberg, H. (2003). Unconventional wisdom: A conversation with Henry Mintzberg. Leadership in Action, 23(4), 8–10.

Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal. (2000). Giving better, giving smarter. Retrieved August 29, 2000, from http://www.centerforrenewal.org/from_the_front__/Rep…/the_need_for_wiser_giving.htm

Nelson, B. (2000). Great leaders inspire action from workers. Philadelphia Business Journal, 19(14), 43.

News & Record, Consumer spending tops income growth. (2000, August 29). Greensboro, NC.

Noer, D. M. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Noer, D. M. (1994). Of cowboys and leaders. Issues & Observations, 14(1), 9–11.

Noer, D. M. (1997). Breaking free: A prescription for personal and organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

O'Toole, J. (1993). The executive's compass: Business and the good society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oxford Atlas of the World. (1994). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pearson, C. (1986). The hero within: Six archetypes we live by. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Knopf.

Peters, T., & Austin, N. K. (1985). A passion for excellence: The leadership difference. New York: Random House.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104–112.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.

Pierson, G. W. (1938). Tocqueville and Beaumont in America. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Powell, G. N. (1999). Handbook of gender & work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prugh, T., & Assadourian, E. (2003). What is sustainability anyway? Worldwatch, 16(5), 10–21.

Rabinowitz, N. S., & Richlin, A. (1993). Feminist theory and the classics. New York: Routledge.

Rhinesmith, S. H. (1993). A manager's guide to globalization: Six keys to success in a changing world. Alexandria, VA: Business One Irwin.

Robinson, J. (2003). Work to live: The guide to getting a life. New York: Perigee.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–454.

Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (1999). The gender gap in earnings: Trends, explanations, and prospects. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 92–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosen, R. (2000). Global literacies. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (2002). Standing at the crossroads: Next steps for high-achieving women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the other. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sampson, E. E. (2000). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: Their religious roots and mono-logic versus dialogic person-other relationship. American Psychologist, 55(12), 1425–1432.

Sarin, R. (2003). Women gain political seats, but gap in education and employment persists. Worldwatch, 16(2), 8.

Sayles, L. R. (1993). The working leader. New York: The Free Press.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions on values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kâgitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Schwartz, S. (1999). The theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414–432.

Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1–14.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine.

Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. (1998). Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: Theory and research implications for international comparative management. Advances in International Comparative Management, 12, 7–35.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business.

New York: Irwin.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vaill, P. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Wills, S., & Barham, K. (1994). Being an international manager. European Management Journal, 12(1), 49–58.

Wilson, M. S., Hoppe, M. H., & Sayles, L. R. (1996). Managing across cultures: A learning framework. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

The World Book Encyclopedia. (1981, Vol. 20). Chicago: World Book-Childcraft International.

Yeung, A. K. & Ready, D. A. (1995). Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations: A comparative study of eight nations. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 529–547.

Appendix A

U.S. Demographic Data

•  Sample Size	: N = 382 (respondents with missing data excluded)
•  Financial Services Industry	: N = 146 (three organizations)
•  Telecommunication Services Industry	: N = 65 (two organizations)
•  Food Industry	: N = 171 (three organizations)
•  Gendera	: Male = 68%
	Female = 32%
•  Age	: x = 44
•  Years of Formal Education	: x = 17
•  Years of Managerial Experience	: x = 14
•  Years with Current Employer	: x = 12
•  Number of Direct Reports	: x = 8
•  Respondents in middle and upper middle management (organizational level): 90%
•  Respondents who've worked for a multinational corporation in their career: 58%
•  Respondents who've received training in Western management practices: 63%
•  Respondents in:b
HR/Personnel Management	: 12.4%
Manufacturing/Production	: 9.7%
Marketing	: 8.9%
Finance/Accounting	: 8.0%
Administration	: 5.8%
Sales	: 5.8%
R&D	: 4.0%
Support Services	: 3.5%
Planning	: 2.7%
Other	: 39.0%

Notes: ^aOnly 285 (or fewer) respondents provided demographic data (gender, age, etc.). ^b226 respondents, only, indicated one “kind of work primarily done by your unit.”

Appendix B

Cultural Scales, U.S. Industry and Global Norms

^aN = 54 countries; N = 3 U.S. Organizations; N = 70 respondents. ^bT-scores represent standardized U.S. industry rankings against global industry norms (M = 50, SD = 10). ^cN = 31 countries; N = 2 U.S. Organizations; N = 30 respondents. ^dN = 44 countries; N = 3 U.S. Organizations; N = 88 respondents. ^e1 SD or more above or below global industry norm.

Appendix C

Significant Correlations Between Cultural Orientations (“Should Be”) and Leadership Scales^a

	Positive		Negative
Gender Egalitarianism	Participative (Second Order)	+.58	Conflict Inducer	-.58
	Inspirational	+.56	Face Saver	-.57
	Performance Orientation	+.51	Self-Protective (Second Order)	-.57
	Visionary	+.51	Nonparticipative	-.56
	Charismatic (Second Order)	+.49	Self-Centered	-.52
	Integrity	+.46	Autocratic	-.51
	Decisive	+.40	Malevolent	-.50
			Procedural	-.43
Assertiveness	Participative (Second Order)	+.34	Face Saver	-.32
			Modesty	-.31
			Humane O. (Second Order)	-.31
			Nonparticipative	-.31
Performance Orientation	Status-Conscious	+.33	Autonomous (Second Order)	-.35
Humane Orientation			Self-Sacrificial	-.27
In-Group Collectivism	Team Integrator Inspirational	+.40 +.30	Autonomous (Second Order)	-.29
Future Orientation	Procedural	+.53	Autonomous (Second Order)	-.37
	Status-Conscious	+.51	Autonomous	-.36
	Self-Protective (Second Order)	+.41	Participative (Second Order)	-.34
	Modesty	+.35
	Autocratic	+.35
Power Distance	Self-Centered	+.50	Team Integrator	-.47
	Malevolent	+.35	Inspirational	-.40
	Autonomous (Second Order)	+.33	Integrity	-.40
	Face Saver	+.32	Visionary	-.37
			Charismatic (Second Order)	-.37
			Collaborative Team Oriented	-.32
			Participative (Second Order)	-.32
			Decisive	-.32
Uncertainty Avoidance	Procedural	+.76	Participative (Second Order)	-.62
	Self-Protective (Second Order)	+.76	Inspirational	-.35
	Face Saver	+.64
	Status-Conscious	+.61
	Nonparticipative	+.59
	Conflict Inducer	+.58
	Autocratic	+.56
	Administratively Competent	+.48
	Self-Centered	+.44
	Malevolent	+.41
	Team Oriented (Second Order)	+.39
	Modesty	+.37
	Humane Orientation (Second Order)+.34
Institutional Collectivism	Status-Conscious	+.50	Autonomous	-.51
	Procedural	+.37	Autonomous (Second Order)	-.49
	Collaborative Team Oriented	+.35

^aSignificant at .01 or higher levels of significance.

Appendix D

Cross-Cultural Interview Guide

Purpose

The purpose of the interview is to explore, in some depth, how managers in your culture explicitly and implicitly define leadership.

QUESTIONS

1.  We are interested in determining your personal definition of outstanding leadership. To arrive at this definition we have a number of questions and subquestions. The first question concerns the difference between competent managers and outstanding leaders. What do you see this difference to be?

2.  Now we are interested in your perception of the opposite of outstanding leadership. If the person is in the position of leadership and does not exercise outstanding leadership, what would be the kinds of behaviors in which they engage?

3.  Can you think of a critical incident that illustrates outstanding leadership?

4.  Can you think of another such incident?

5.  Were there any obstacles or constraints faced by the leaders in these incidents? Any opposition, resistance, bureaucratic red tape, or lack of resources, for example?

6.  Can you think of two or three well-known outstanding leaders? Who are they?

7.  Is there anything that these leaders have in common that makes them outstanding and differentiate them from others who have been in similar positions?

8.  How is the behavior of these leaders similar?

9.  Can you think of a specific behavior, something each leader did, that illustrates his or her leadership?

10. Can you think of something a leader did that resulted in your strong acceptance of support of the leader or resulted in significantly increased motivation on your part, or willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty in the interest of the leader's vision, objective, or mission?

Appendix E

Summary Comparisons Between GLOBE and Qualitative Results

^aNumbers in parentheses = U.S. country mean for that scale. ^bNumbers in parentheses = percent of specifically designated leader characteristic based on 387 observations of which 35.4 percent attracted outstanding leader designation in the 10 leader scales listed. ^cNumbers in parentheses = percent of leader characteristics based on scorable 391observations. ^dNumbers in parentheses = percent of leader characteristics based on 505 observations from Business Week, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.^eLeadership scales in italics not part of top 10 across all four analyses. ^fLeadership scales in bold are part of top 10 of all analyses.

Appendix F

Media Analysis Major Themes^a

Individual Leader Characteristics (e.g., hard driving, persistent, competitive, inclusive, inspirational, risk taker, energetic, firm, decisive, honest)	30.6%
Growth and Profit (e.g., market share, revenue, fast growth, profit, making money, return on investments, success, bottom line)	14.4%
Strategy and Doing Business (e.g., focusing on core business, restructuring, marketing, cost cutting, expanding, strategy, differentiate, consolidation)	14.4%
Free-Market Environment (e.g., free-market dynamics, fair competition, changing times, customer demands, government regulations, global competition, technological change)	12.7%
Miscellaneous (e.g., back to basics, conspicuous, fast track, capability, pressure, great complexity, new system, breaking with past, talented)	22.8%

^aBased on 1,648 key terms in Business Week, 12/1998 and 2/1999; The New York Times, 12/9–11/1998 and 2/15–19/1999; and The Wall Street Journal, 12/9–11/1998 and 2/16–19/1999. Statements from USA Today and Time magazine were inadvertently excluded.

Appendix G

Media Analysis Most Frequently Used Terms^a

1.	Market or markets
	(e.g., market appeal, market share, changing market)
2.	Customers or consumers
	(e.g., customer demands, customer orientation, consumer tastes)
3.	Profit or profitability
	(e.g., making profits, profit oriented, profitable management)
4.	Vision or goal
	(e.g., vision, visionary, setting high goals)
5.	Change or changing
	(e.g., technological change, ability to change, changing environment)
6.	Efficiency or cutting
	(e.g., efficiency gains, cost cutting, cutting back)
7.	Growth or expanding
	(e.g., growth opportunity, expanding market, revenue growth)
8.	Strategy
	(e.g., long-term strategy, articulating a strategy, growth strategy)
9.	Marketing or advertising
	(e.g., direct marketing, niche marketing, product advertising)
10.	Long-term
	(e.g., long-term orientation, thinking long-term, long-term improvement)

^aBased on 2,546 statements from 106 articles (see sources of media analysis).

Appendix H

Significant Statistical Relationships Between U.S. Demographic Variables, Cultural Orientations (“ Should Be”), and Leader Scales

	Age × Future Orientation:		+.16*
	Organizational Level × Assertiveness Orientation:		+.17*
	Women lower in Uncertainty Avoidance*
	Women lower in Future Orientation**
	Women higher in Gender Egalitarianism**
	Years of Education × Administratively Competent:		−.23***
×	Modesty:		−.18**
×	Procedural:		−.17**
×	Collaborative Team Oriented:		−.16**
×	Conflict Inducer:		−.16**
×	Diplomatic:		−.15*
×	Malevolent:		+.16**
	Years of Management Experience × Administratively Competent:		−.12*
×	Status-Conscious:		−.12*
	Women less	autocratic** face saver* procedural*
	Women more	inspirational** visionary* diplomatic* participative*

Note. There are no significant associations between leader scales and functional belonging of respondents (e.g., sales, R&D, etc.).
^* < .05, ^** < .01, ^***< .001.

______________

¹The first set of names and characteristics comes from an in-class survey during the 1999 fall semester of 31 students majoring in business administration at the mid-South university where the coauthor teaches. They were asked to think of and then rank outstanding leaders in the following areas: business and commerce; education; politics, public service and government; and sports and entertainment. The students had an average age of about 30 years, 80% were from the United States, and 40% of them were women. Their selection of the following leaders is best understood as examples of outstanding leaders in U.S. society, not as a representative sample.

²The second list of names and characteristics is based on a question that was posed in early 1999 to staff members at all levels of the Greensboro campus of the Center for Creative Leadership. They were asked to send to the first author of this chapter “names of three U.S. leaders from past or present, who immediately come to mind (from anywhere—business, academia, politics, entertainment, etc.), and a few words on why you selected each.” About one third of them responded and of those 72 respondents about 75% were women. A total of 227 names of leaders were submitted, 116 of which were different. With one exception, men listed names of male leaders only. In contrast, about one third of the names of leaders submitted by women were women. The top vote getters from the 72 respondents were Martin Luther King Jr. (26×), John F. Kennedy (13×), and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln (12× each).