CHAPTER 5

Leadership in Developing Countries

Introduction

The field of “leadership studies” has long been primarily focused on western leadership styles and practices.¹ This occurred for various reasons including the location of the critical mass of researchers in the United States and the fact that most companies operated primarily in the United States with some cautious expansion into foreign markets with similar linguistic and cultural traditions. However, several factors—globalization of the workforce, expansion of operations into numerous countries and regions around the world, and exposure to increase global competition—has forced leadership scholars to incorporate culture into their research and theories because leaders of businesses of all sizes in all countries must be prepared to interact with customers and other business partners from different cultures and leaders of larger companies have the additional challenge of managing multinational organizations and aligning a global corporate culture with multiple and diverging national cultures. In addition, there has been a growing recognition that the study of leadership in developing countries, and training of prospective leaders in those countries, is important because leaders in developing countries can, “by creating vision, direction and collective purposes,” play a pivotal role in resolving multiple collection action problems that impede social development and economic growth in those countries.²

It is now well accepted that leadership “matters” when it comes to economic growth and development, a conclusion that follows the previous realization that institutions are important contributors to the social and economic progress of developing countries. However, scholars such as de Ver have been critical of research efforts relating to leadership in developing countries, arguing that “many of the conceptions of leadership in the literature are Western-oriented, universalist or individualistic, and there are few conceptions which either incorporate a political understanding of leadership as a process or which have developmental salience.”³ She has also expressed a concern that little analysis has been conducted on how leadership can be practiced in what she describes as “the very often unstable, hybrid and evolving institutional contexts which characterize the condition of many developing countries.” She counseled that leadership needed to be understood as a political process, particularly in developing countries, and leadership occurred “within a given indigenous configuration of power, authority and legitimacy, shaped by history, institutions, goals and political culture.” She noted that in developing countries, leaders must be able to forge formal or informal coalitions, vertical or horizontal, to solve collective action problems and that the influence of informal institutions is much greater in developing countries and it was thus imperative for leaders to understand those institutions and engage with them in order to be effective.

After conducting an extensive survey of the general literature on “leadership,” de Ver concluded that relatively little work had been done on leadership in the specific context of developing countries and the unique problems that the social, economic, and political environments in those countries create for their prospective leaders. Her specific findings included the following⁴:

• Leadership as concept and practice has neither been properly researched nor understood analytically as a key element in the politics of economic growth and social development, and the available literature seldom addresses those key issues.
• The bulk of the literature focuses on individuals and individual capacities, or attributes (i.e., individual leaders’ characteristics, qualities, attributes, or traits), and not on leadership as a political process involving both leaders’ relations with followers and, more critically, elites and coalitions and their interactions.
• Much of the general leadership literature has a distinctly western, business-related focus with a particular emphasis on leadership from a managerial and organizational perspective. This is not surprising given that most of the scholars working in the field of “leadership studies” are based in the United States and many of the leading textbooks on the subject have generally included few case studies and examples set in the developing world while focusing most of the attention on western management systems.
• Only a small body of “mainstream leadership literature” addresses the role of leadership for economic and social ­development and what is available is largely confined to empirical studies of individual cases.
• What literature there is on leadership in developing ­countries pays little attention to issues concerning leaders, elites, and coalitions.
• There are substantial policy-relevant research gaps to be filled. For example, de Ver urges the research community to move toward creating and expanding a library of case studies that illustrate the role that leaders, elites, and coalitions in developing countries have played in successfully achieving sustained economic growth, social development, and organizational success. Cases studies should focus on national, subnational, sectorial, and organizational activities.

Although de Ver’s critiques are varied and diverse, she correctly points out the problems that arise when so much of the leadership-related research is based on an assumption of universal acceptance of western business culture, which she describes as one “in which profit is the main indicator of success and the main goal.”⁵ The following passage illustrates how and why application of a western “cultural hegemony” can lead to puzzling and problematic results in developing countries:

[In the West there is] the belief that people are rational actors, that markets should be given predominance over the state, and that individualism and competition have inherent merits. In other cultures, however, these assumptions are not universally accepted and often the opposite is the case. For example . . . in much of East Asia emphasis is placed on conformity, notions of interpersonal harmony and collectivism or group-centeredness. This is in clear contrast to the Western functionalist paradigm where emphasis is placed on autonomy, competition between individuals and groups, performance and self-assertion. In Africa, a different culture of leadership, again, is visible, with emphasis on ceremony, ritual, interpersonal relations, reciprocity, and the distribution of scant resources to clan and ethnic affiliates over and above profit and competition.⁶

Another problem with relying on western-based notions of organizational and managerial leadership for analyzing developing countries is the implicit assumption that the political environment and business systems are relatively stable. In fact, formal rules, regulations, and accepted practices are often unavailable, or ignored, in developing countries. Although the situation is slowly changing as developing countries engage in wholesale restructuring and strengthening of their institutions, it is still generally the case that leaders in developing countries must operate in an environment in which rules change constantly and change is accepted slowly and often with great suspicion by followers. This is one of the reasons that a key role of an organizational leader in a developing country is protecting the organization against the possibility of adverse changes in policy by public institutions, because the state continues to exercise substantial influence in the marketplaces of developing countries.

Culture and Leadership in Developing Countries

As in all countries, leaders in developing countries act within a specific sociocultural environment and the characteristics of that environment are presumed to be important determinants of the efficacy of the leader’s style and practices. Aycan suggested a profile of the “typical” cultural environment in developing countries that included a strong emphasis on relationships and networking; a strong family orientation that impacts both the personal and work lives of society members; low individual performance orientation, consistent with the strong relationship orientation and collectivist nature of most developing country societies; a low sense of control and self-efficacy, leading to a feeling of “fatalism” and a sense that events are out of the control of society members; downward, indirect, and nonconfrontational communication patterns; and, finally, a strong authority orientation rooted in respect, loyalty, and deference toward those in positions of authority.⁷ She also cautioned, however, that there will certainly be significant cultural differences among the large number of countries still classified as “developing” and that within each country one will find differences among individuals—because of education, socioeconomic status, or age; regional and ethic subcultures; and business organizations (e.g., subsidiaries of multinational corporations will likely have different cultural orientations than indigenous family-owned businesses).

Using societal culture as a reference point, Pasa et al. provided a suggested list of the expectations and assumptions of leaders in developing countries with respect to their followers along with a profile of leader preferences regarding their own styles and behavior. Specifically, they argued that in developing countries leaders “are more likely to assume that their employees have an external locus of control, have limited and fixed potential, operate from a time perspective that is past and present oriented and have a short-time focus.”⁸ With respect to the actual behavior of leaders in developing countries, Pasa et al. predicted that they “are more likely to encourage a passive or reactive stance to task performance, judge success on moralism derived from tradition and religion, favour an authoritarian or paternalistic orientation and accept that consideration of the context overrides principles and rules.”⁹ Jaeger observed that

[t]he relatively high power distance and the authoritarian/paternalistic people orientation of developing countries imply a certain type of leadership behaviour and leader–follower relationship . . . characterized as being more congruent with “Theory X” leadership, which . . . presupposes limited and fixed human potential.

It is certainly problematic and dangerous to make generalizations regarding the elements of societal culture that can be found in the large swath of countries around the world that are classified as “developing.” However, cultural profiles developed by researchers may be used as a means for creating hypotheses about the issues and problems that will likely confront leaders in developing countries and the solutions that might be used in order to motivate followers to act in ways that contribute to the achievement of goals established for the organization. In addition, understanding the cultural profile of the country in which a leader is operating provides a clue regarding the preferred personality traits and work values of leaders; the manner in which leaders should seek to relate to their subordinates, including the degree to which leaders are expected to be involved in the personal affairs of subordinates and their families; the basis upon which a leader can attain “legitimacy” in the eyes of those that he or she is seeking to leader; and, finally, the effectiveness of particular leadership styles and behaviors.¹⁰

Relationship Orientation and Paternalism

The strong relationship orientation found in many developing countries explains the popularity and prevalence of the paternalistic leadership style in developing countries. Leaders, like others in those countries, place great importance on establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships with others including subordinates in the workplace. In turn, subordinates also expect a relationship with their superior that is personal yet professional and characterized by protection, close guidance, and supervision. In exchange for the responsibilities that leaders take for their lives, subordinates are loyal and deferential to their leaders and are generally willing to follow their directions without question or criticism. The paternalistic relationship between leaders and subordinates in developing countries is analogous to a parent–child relationship and, as is the case in the familial context, the relationship is hierarchical with the leader assumed to “know better” for the subordinates in all areas of their lives: personal, professional, and family-related matters.¹¹

Aycan argues that the evidence of paternalism can be found in numerous acts by both leaders and subordinates within and outside the workplace. For example, Aycan explains that

[t]he paternalistic leader gives advice (often times unsolicited) and guides employees in personal, professional (e.g., make career planning on their behalf), and family-related matters (e.g., do marriage counseling, resolve disputes between husband and wives, etc.); shows concern for the well-being of the subordinate as well as his/her family; attends congratulatory (e.g., weddings) and condolence (e.g., funerals) ceremonies of employees as well as their immediate family members; when in need, provides financial assistance to employees (in form of donations or sometimes as loans) in, for example, housing, health care, and educational expenses of their children; allows them to attend personal or family-­related problems by letting them leave early or take a day off; acts as a mediator in interpersonal conflicts among employees, and even talks to the disputed party on behalf of the other (without his knowledge or consent) to resolve the conflict.¹²

In return, subordinates are willing to go to great lengths to demonstrate their loyalty and deference to their leaders including

engaging in extra-role behavior or working overtime (unpaid) upon the request of the supervisor; not quitting the job (even if one receives a much better job offer) because of loyalty; following the paternalistic superior to another organization if s/he quits the company; not questioning nor disagreeing with the superior in decisions regarding the company or the employee (e.g., performance evaluations, career-planning, etc.); doing personal favors for the superior when needed (e.g., helping him during the construction of his house); putting extra effort in the job and working hard, so not to lose face to the superior.¹³

Family Orientation

Family orientation is an important influence on societal culture in developing countries and plays an important part in how subordinates view work activities in the larger context of their lives and how subordinates expect their leaders to act in an organizational context. In most cases, subordinates view work primarily as a means for satisfying the needs of their families and advancing the family’s status within society. In ­addition, subordinates expect that the organizations they work for will take care of them and their families and it is common to find organizations ­offering health and educational services to their workers and their families, ­contributing to housing and heating expenses, and providing financial assistance to workers who may be experiencing problems. Family obligations are routinely allowed to take precedence over work. Aycan explained that “employees feel entitled to absent themselves from work for family-­related reasons . . . [w]ork always comes next to family, and there is nothing more natural than this.”¹⁴ Family orientation is also expressed through the preference for subordinate–superior relationships in the workplace that are analogous to the way that a parent (i.e., the superior) interacts with a child (i.e., the subordinate) and vice versa.

Harmony and Individual Performance Orientation

One of the most vexing issues for leaders steeped in Anglo-style values and practices is establishing reward systems in developing countries that are intended to motivate subordinates to establish and pursue individual goals and objectives. The importance placed on maintaining good and harmonious interpersonal relationships tends to stifle individual performance orientation in developing countries. Subordinates are expected to concentrate on loyalty and compliance toward their superiors and acting in ways that promote, rather than disturb, harmony with their coworkers. This means that any action that causes a person to “stand out” within his or her group is frowned upon and may lead to jealousy and isolation of that person. In turn, persons who are having trouble fulfilling their quotas or otherwise keeping up with others will usually be tolerated and treated with compassion as long as they are doing their best and have an honest intention to contribute to the work of the group.¹⁵ Muczyk and Holt noted that in light of the collectivist nature of many societies classified as “developing” it is not surprising that group and/or organizational measures of performance are recommended as the basis for rewards.¹⁶

Low Sense of Control and Self-Efficacy

The low levels of sense of control and self-efficacy often found in developing countries causes persons to believe that events are based primarily on external causes outside of their control or influence. As a result, many people in developing countries look at activities such as planning, scheduling, and goal setting as being pointless. They are also reluctant to be proactive and take initiative because they feel that there is little likelihood that such an approach will make a difference, given that results are out of their control, and there are concerns that individual initiative will simply increase risks and uncertainty and that challenging the status quo will disrupt harmony within the group. Poor or mediocre behavior may be explained, and tolerated, in developing countries as simply being a person’s “destiny.”

Communication Patterns

Aycan noted that organizational communication patterns in developing countries tend to be “indirect, non-assertive, non-confrontational, and usually downwards,”¹⁷ which is consistent with the hierarchical nature of organizations and the acceptance of authority from and at the top of the hierarchy. This has a number of consequences for organizational leaders in developing countries. First, honest and complete performance evaluations are extremely difficult because negative feedback, even when intended to improve performance, is seen as when Aycan described as “destructive criticism” and often misconstrued as being a personal attack on the recipient. Feedback, when given, must also be presented in a way that does not cause the recipient to lose “face” among his or her peers and in the eyes of his or her superiors. Finally, negative feedback may be viewed as disrupting the all-important sense of harmony within the group. Second, downward communication patterns mean that little, if any, feedback flows from subordinates up to their superiors. This is not surprising given the deference shown to those in positions of authority; however, the lack of information from lower levels of the organization may undermine the leader’s ability to make appropriate decisions and make adjustments to directions that have already been issued. Aycan also noted that “[t]here is strong preference for face-to-face communication in business dealings” in developing countries.¹⁸ Although this type of communication should, presumably, reduce the risk of misunderstanding it also tends to be more time consuming and may lead to delays in completing specific tasks and entire projects.

Leader Authority and Power

The almost absolute authority of superiors in an organizational context in developing countries is consistent with the authority orientation that permeates societal culture in those countries. Superiors are entitled to, and receive, respect, loyalty, and deference and are trusted because of their knowledge, experience, and achievements. Although organizational rules may be prescribed, subordinates act based on their respect for authority rather than because they are expected to follow rules and procedures. Subordinates rarely challenge those in authority and accept that although superiors are part of the “in-group” they have a higher status that separates them from other group members and entitles them to certain privileges and advantages. Superiors in developing countries often have close relationships with their subordinates, including close and extensive ­participation in the personal lives of subordinates; however, these relationships are not to be confused with “friendship” and typically remain formal and distant.

The respect for, and acceptance of, a leader’s authority in developing countries is accompanied by a strong desire among leaders to exercise the power they have been given over their subordinates and their firms. Ideally, at least from the perspective of the subordinates, power will be exercise in a manner that is consistent with good interpersonal relations between leaders and their subordinates—a style that Aycan describes as “benevolent paternalism,”19 which is characterized by a leader exercising his or her power for the benefit of subordinates in the same way that a parent directs and disciplines his or her children for “their own good.” Often, however, leaders in developing countries engage in what Aycan called “exploitative paternalism” and use their power and status for their personal benefit and the advantage of their families and other in-group members.20 Even when leaders engage in benevolent paternalism they still insist in various manifestations of their power and authority such as formality and respect in personal relationships with subordinates. In addition, the inequality of power between leaders and subordinates leads to centralization and unilateral decision-making by the leader. Consultation with subordinates is rare, even nonexistent, because leaders believe that encouraging participation in decision-making by subordinates will undermine their power and make them look weak. For their part, ­subordinates in developing countries are generally tolerant of apparently dictatorial practices of their leaders with respect to decisions and instructions because they trust the wisdom and competencies of the leader and are themselves reluctant to take on the risks and responsibilities that come with making decisions.

Leader Networking Responsibilities

The importance of relationships between leaders and their subordinates in developing countries has already been discussed earlier; however, the relationship orientation typically found in those countries extends outside of the workplace in the form of the extensive efforts that leaders in developing countries must make in order to establish and maintain good relations with those in positions of power within key institutions such as the government. The scarcity of technical and financial resources in developing countries, and the role that local politics plays in who controls those resources and how they are allocated, means that organizational leaders in those countries must proactively seek to protect the interests of their firms. Accordingly, Aycan notes that developing countries leaders must be skilled in “networking and diplomacy.”²¹

Effective Leadership Practices for
Developing Countries

Whereas research on the influence of societal culture on leadership is not as prevalent with respect to developing countries as it is with western societies, anecdotal evidence appears to provide support for the proposition that the actions of leaders in developing countries are significantly influenced by cultural factors. Aycan succinctly summarized and described the key opportunities and challenges confronting leaders operating in developing countries in the following manner:

Loyalty, trust and affection for the leader; importance of harmonious interpersonal relationships; desire to learn and motivation to develop; self-sacrifice for the well-being of the “in-group”; flexibility. These are workforce characteristics that have great potential to enhance organizational performance, if utilized effectively. On the other hand, the global leader will be challenged to gain acceptance as an in-group member, motivate employees for higher performance, improve communication effectiveness, overcome the sense of insecurity, helplessness and dependency proneness, and administer participative decision-making.²²

Although one menu of leadership styles and behaviors cannot fit every circumstance in the developing world, researchers have nonetheless attempted to suggest a universal list of the qualities of effective leadership in developing countries. For example, according to Aycan, the following characteristics should be included in an “ideal leader profile” for leaders in developing countries: empowering (able to make people feel that they are powerful); participative, but also decisive; trustworthy, knowledgeable, skillful, and administratively competent; paternalistic and also ­performance-oriented; fair and just, especially in interpersonal relationships; diplomatic; conscious of status differences, but at the same time modest and humble; and team integrator.²³

Kurfi, writing with particular regard to leadership styles in Nigeria, provided the following list of “the qualities of good leadership” to which leaders in emerging economies should aspire²⁴:

• A good leader serves as a personal example of good moral character and personal integrity which can and should be emulated by his or her followers.
• A good leader has competencies in the art of managing people and resources and the capacity and motivation to initiate activities and programs that are useful to his or her ­organization and society.
• Good leaders are able to inspire loyalty and commitment from their follower to pursue a specific vision and mission established and described by the leader.
• Good leaders are willing to subordinate their personal interests and desires and instead work to promote the interests and desires of his or her followers.
• Good leaders have clear goals and a vision of the results they want their followers to achieve and also have the capacity and knowledge to recognize and resolve problems and challenges that are likely to be encountered on the path of pursuing those goals.
• Leaders are more likely to be effective when they are allowed to “emerge from below and not imposed from above,” a ­concept similar to “servant-based” leadership theory.
• Effective leaders are people-oriented and should strive for empathy with the aspirations of their followers in a way that builds trust among those followers.

The qualities described by Kurfi emphasize role modeling, talents and competencies, motivation and initiative, charismatic inspiration, sacrifice, a clear sense of purpose, empathy, and participation; however, Kurfi concedes that such qualities are often lacking in developing countries such as Nigeria where leadership is frequently associated with corruption and leaders habitually neglect the welfare of the followers and the need for honor and integrity and instead concentrate on their personal interests and the interests of their own “in-group.”²⁵ In fact, another observer of the situation in Nigeria argued that the country’s main problem was the absence of the required leadership sincerity and political will to marshal the resources available to address the poverty that exists among a vast majority of the citizens of that country.²⁶

The influential Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness research program, or “GLOBE” study, provided evidence for the effectiveness of several different leadership profiles in country clusters in which a high proportion of the members could reasonably be classified as “developing countries.”²⁷ For example, the GLOBE researchers’ “charismatic/value-based” leadership style, which was universally endorsed as effective across all of the country clusters in the GLOBE study, ranked highly in the Latin American and Southern Asian clusters and even though the lowest score for this profile appeared in the Middle East cluster it was still ranked second out of the six possible styles among the respondents from that cluster. Latin Americans had the highest praise for “team-oriented” leadership among all of the country clusters and this style was also perceived quite positively by respondents from Confucian Asia and Southern Asia. Southern Asians had the strongest positive preference for “humane-oriented” leadership among all of the country clusters in the GLOBE study and was also well regarded among respondents in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Confucian Asia clusters. Although “participative” leadership was also seen as having a positive effect among developing countries the enthusiasm for this style was not as great as for the other styles mentioned earlier and lagged behind the endorsements provided in the United States and other industrialized countries.

Charismatic/Value-Based Leaders

In general, charismatic/value-based leadership is well thought of all around the world regardless of which country cluster is being examined. This style of leadership is often referred to as “transformational” leadership, which has been defined as a leader who “engages with others in such a way that the leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.”²⁸ Bass, one of the major proponents of transformational leadership as a universally effective style, believed that there are four components to transformational leadership: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.²⁹ A number of studies appear to support the effectiveness of transformational leadership and this style would appear to be particularly attractive and productive in developing countries in that it assumes that leaders are proactively engaged in creating positive changes for their followers and the society as a whole in those countries.

Many researchers have suggested that there are universal attributes of transformational leadership that are endorsed and effective across all cultures.³⁰ With regard to developing countries, for example, Woycke analyzed the biographies of charismatic leaders in those countries and concluded that they generally had characteristics that were consistent with the four components identified by Bass and listed earlier.³¹ Several studies of leaders in India also concluded that successful leaders in that country possessed the qualities commonly associated with transformational leaders.³² However, Bass and others have also “accepted that though the formulation of transformational leadership is in a relatively universal manner, a leader might need to act in different ways within differing cultural contexts.”³³ For example, although transformational leadership is praised in Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe, two of the components—charisma and idealized consideration—have been found to be relatively less effective in influencing and improving the performance of followers.³⁴ Similarly, transformational leaders are cautioned to take the sociocultural environment into account when deciding on how best to communicate their vision to followers.³⁵

Singh and Krishman summed up their review of the literature relative to the universality and culture contingency of attributes of transformational leadership by observing that “we see that even though the general definition of transformational leadership is applicable globally, its effective operationalization is culturally contingent.”³⁶ They cautioned that leaders seeking to achieve transformational change in developing countries must be sensitive to “culture-specific complexities and nuances operating within their organizations”³⁷ and noted that perhaps the unsuccessful transfer of western management techniques, including transformational leadership systems, could be traced to a failure to identify, understand, and honor local ideologies and beliefs. Singh and Krishman went on to examine how effective transformational leadership was actually operationalized in India and found that whereas 44 percent of the responses they received from their survey group were consistent with the universal dimension of transformational leadership the remaining 56 percent of the responses were consistent with several culturally contingent “unique Indian dimensions” such as “nurturant” (20 percent), “personal touch” (13 percent), “expertise” (7 percent), “simple-living-high-thinking” (7 percent), “loyalty” (4 percent), “self-sacrifice” (3 percent), and “giving model of motivation” (2 percent). They concluded that a manager in India is more likely to emerge as a transformational leader if he or she “follows socially appreciable image (simple living) and encourages behaviors that are socially valued (selfless behavior, loyalty, culture of giving and personal touch).”³⁸

Team-Oriented Leaders

The GLOBE researchers summarized their “team-oriented” leadership dimension as emphasizing “effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members.” Team-oriented leadership was quite popular among developing countries in the GLOBE study and clearly should resonate well in a cultural environment in which collectivism and harmonious personal interrelationships are valued. In fact, Aycan argued that the ideal leader in developing countries is a “team integrator” who is able to overcome certain sociocultural challenges existing in those countries to motivate employees to act as effective team members. However, Aycan also cautioned that the typical sociocultural profile in developing countries may at once promote and hinder effective teamwork. For example, she explains that whereas “[r]elationship-orientation may be perceived as an asset for teamwork … the nature of relationships and in-group dynamics may hinder effectiveness.”³⁹ One particular issue for managers in developing countries is putting together a team that has the appropriate mix of task-related knowledge and competencies. In a society where interpersonal harmony and “in-group” relationships are extremely important, team members may have difficulty working with someone who is perceived to be from an “out-group” even if that person clearly has the skills needed for the team to achieve its stated business purpose. As Aycan observed: “. . . [t]eam members find it very difficult to work with someone who they ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t like’ . . . [m]embers who have the potential to disturb in-group harmony are not wanted no matter how competent they may be.”⁴⁰

Another issue in organizing and managing teams in developing countries is the ability of the leader to maintain team cohesion, which is obviously necessary in order for the team to perform effectively and complete assigned tasks in a timely manner. Aycan suggests that teamwork requires egalitarian relationships and cautions that the status consciousness of team members and/or their suspicion of “out-group” members may lead to a failure to share information needed by other members of the team. Even among members of the same “in-group” there may be rivalries to obtain recognition and praise from the leader that undermine communication and collaboration. Ironically, too much team cohesion may undermine team performance also, as might be the case when group members become so tightly knit that they become reluctant to raise questions or create disagreements that might undermine team harmony even when it might be reasonable and appropriate to reconsider how a particular team activity is being conducted.⁴¹

Other potential impediments to effective teamwork in developing countries may appear in areas such as performance feedback, division of responsibility, and group discussions. With respect to performance feedback, the need to preserve harmony and not cause team members to lose “face” hampers efforts to provide negative feedback, even in situations where a team member is clearly not performing at the level required for the entire team to be effective. Criticism, particularly criticism delivered and received in the “wrong way,” may cause the recipient to leave the team or remain and sabotage the efforts of other team members. The inability of team leaders in developing countries to establish procedures for evaluation performance and delivering feedback leads to another significant hurdle to effective team work: “social loafing” because there is no consequence associated with doing a poor job. Social loafing may also occur because leaders do not clearly differentiate role assignments within the group and team members are unwilling to take the initiative on their own to define their jobs and/or assume additional responsibilities. Finally, Aycan notes that “[s]elf-representation is an important concern for people in developing countries” and suggests that this may cause members of teams in those countries to be uncomfortable about offering suggestions and criticisms in group meeting of team members, both of which are necessary for innovation and creativity, because of concerns about how they might be perceived and evaluated by others in the meeting.⁴²

Aycan suggested that knowledge about potential sociocultural impediments to effective teamwork in developing countries can be used by team leaders in those countries to develop leadership styles and practices that can make them more effective “team integrators.” Among the ideas offered by Aycan were the following⁴³:

• Team leaders in developing countries must be skillful in both maintaining good interpersonal relations and setting high performance standards. Strong leadership is necessary for teams to flourish in developing countries because the sociocultural profile makes it unlikely that teams in those countries will be able to organize themselves and operate autonomously.
• Team leaders need to exercise caution and care when organizing teams to ensure that there is compatibility in terms of interpersonal relations; however, this does not mean that close friendship should be the only criterion for team membership, and leaders must also be sure that the group includes members with all the skills and knowledge required for the team to perform its business-related purpose.
• Team leaders need to be mindful of potential sources of ­insecurity and anxiety for team members and must ­proactively work to minimize “in-group” rivalries and establish and ­maintain group cohesiveness within the team such as by sponsoring social activities which allow team members to get to know one another.
• Team leaders must seek to minimize “social loafing” by clearly defining roles and responsibilities for team ­members and should implement training programs for team ­members that teach them about important activities such as performance management and interteam collaboration and ­communications.
• Team leaders should take steps to improve the environment for conducting team meetings and soliciting feedback from team members on team performance.
• Team leaders should not only define roles and responsibilities for team members but also announce in advance the expected norms and values for the team so that all members understand in advance what is expected of them and the consequences associated with failure to perform in the expected manner.
• Team leaders should carefully orchestrate performance evaluations and rewards for good performance. Negative feedback regarding individual performance should be delivered privately and suggestions from the leader to improve team performance should be delivered in a manner that does not embarrass individual team members.
• Rewards should be based on group performance and distributed equitably among all team members.

Participative Leaders

Participative leaders seek to “involve others in making and implementing decisions” and participation is generally recognized around the world as making a positive contribution to effective leadership.⁴⁴ However, the results of the GLOBE survey confirmed the existence of significant differences among societies with respect to how leader efforts to involve followers in decisions might be perceived. Not surprisingly, participative leadership received higher scores among industrialized societies with more individualistic cultural values and lower power distance; however, implementation of this style is likely to be more problematic in high power distance societies where followers are accustomed to differing to those in authority with respect to decisions and might even view attempts at including followers in decisions as a sign of weakness on the part of the leader. It may be that leaders in developing countries will be embracing participative leadership practices more vigorously in the future in response to external factors such as the need to expand communication channels within organizations in order to respond quickly to competitive conditions and the realization that “[e]mployees in developing countries—especially the young and well-educated generation—seek more participation in the decision-making process.”⁴⁵

Humane-Oriented Leaders

Humane-oriented leadership was perceived positively in all of the country clusters in the GLOBE survey; however, the scores in some of the clusters indicated that the effect of this style of leadership was essentially neutral whereas other clusters—Southern Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Confucian Asia—reported that this style made a moderate contribution to effective leadership. Humane orientation “reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity.”⁴⁶ Although humane-oriented leadership has received relatively little attention in the leadership literature, scholars such as Winston and Ryan have argued that societies that view this style favorably may be fertile ground for use of techniques that have been associated with “servant leadership,” which is based on the notion that leaders act for altruistic rather than self-serving reasons and seek to serve their followers and assist them in achieving their vision as opposed to engaging in “command-control” leadership behaviors.⁴⁷ Winston and Ryan explained that elements of GLOBE’s humane orientation construct may be found in traditional religious teachings that have their roots in Africa (Ubuntu, Harambee), East Asia (Taoist, Confucianism), the Mediterranean area (Judaism), and India (Hindu). Kumuyi also discussed the utility of “servant leadership” in Africa and observed that “what Africa needs for its redemption is servant leadership instead of the self-serving governance that the continent is famed for.”⁴⁸ He argued that African leaders, particularly in the political arena, should study the principles of servant leadership in order to learn how to lead by seeking to “serve and help.”⁴⁹

Perspectives on Leadership from Development Leaders in Developing Countries

Jeffrey Yergler, a student and teacher of leadership development, identified 10 interesting and compelling leadership prospective among a group of development leaders, social reformers, and social entrepreneurs from 12 developing nations in Asia:

1. Humility: The primary concerns of the development leaders were not themselves or their development agendas, but rather the well-being of those they worked with and those with whom they served. Their perspective and approach embodied the principles of servant leadership.
2. Get Your Hands Dirty: The development leaders worked in the trenches within their communities, making sure that they were involved, connected, participating, collaborating, and deeply integrated in the work of their organization. They avoided hierarchies or any other barriers to personal engagement in difficult issues and delegated and empowered others.
3. Courage and Risk Taking: The development leaders had no concern for self-preservation and were fully aware of the challenges and issues they need to address from individuals or groups who oppose their work and want them to fail.
4. Taking the Long View: The development leaders were committed and patient and took a long-term view that acknowledged and accepted that progress would be measured person by person, brick by brick, initiative by initiative, and project by project. Their current work was all that mattered and was not a stepping stone to something “more important.”
5. Professional Development and Talent Management: The development leaders were eager to receive training on leading, leadership, and ­talent management and sought sustainable processes and tools to not only support their own leadership learning but also develop the skills of those serving with them in their ­organizations.
6. Collaboration and Partnerships: The development leaders understood that collaborations and partnerships were essential to their impact on their communities and that they needed to be open to learning and exploring with others regarding leadership and management, overcoming obstacles, and making connections.
7. Kindness and Generosity: The development leaders understood the importance of kindness, consideration, and generosity and the value of the opportunities provided by their roles to grow develop, interact, and learn.
8. It’s about the Story: The development leaders understood that whereas experience and education were important to their ability to perform their roles, in order to be effective they needed to be able to weave their knowledge through narratives that provided multiple ­perspectives and insights that impacted the lives of those whom they were trying to help.
9. Fidelity and Loyalty to Those Served by the Mission: The development leaders had a fierce commitment and resolve to their mission and especially those who are served/impacted through the mission. All of the time, resources, energy, and resolve of the development leaders were consistently directed toward their work.
10. Resilience and Hope: The multitude of challenges, points of resistance, and setbacks for development leaders makes it imperative that they be resilient human beings and people who are capable to remaining hopeful about the progress of their mission in the face of resistance, risks, and potential danger.

Source: Yergler, J. June 13, 2017. “What Leaders from Developing Nations Can Teach the West about Leadership: 10 Perspectives.” https://linkedin.com/pulse/what-leaders-from-developing-nations-can-teach-west-yergler-ph-d-?trk=v-feed&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_feed%3Bf7pnqA3AiD3jYHRLis5AaA%3D%3D

Research on Leadership Styles in
Developing Countries

Although not yet as robust as the research work conducted on leadership styles and behaviors in developed countries there has been an increasing interest in studying leadership in developing countries. In general, the most commonly identified leadership style in developing countries has been paternalism and a distinction has often been drawn between “authoritative” and “benevolent” paternalism. As described by Pasa et al., authoritative paternalism includes “emphasis on duty and lacks since generosity on the part of the superior” whereas benevolent paternalism “emphasizes the subordinate’s loyalty and the superior’s generous concern for that subordinate.”⁵⁰ Studies conducted on leadership in Korea and Turkey both led to conclusions that authoritative paternalism was prevalent in those countries.⁵¹ Research conducted on Japanese leadership during a period when that country was still “developing” pointed to a mix of performance- and maintenance-oriented behaviors as being most effective.⁵² Sinha singled out “nurturant task leadership” as being effective in India.⁵³ Finally, Kanungo and Mendonca argued that perhaps charismatic leadership might be appropriate for progress in developing countries because charismatic leaders are likely to be more proactive in initiating changes needed in those countries for economic and social development to proceed.⁵⁴