CHAPTER 2

Leadership Roles and Activities

Introduction

Whereas leaders can be distinguished from managers, leaders nonetheless are responsible for a number of the same functions typically categorized as “managerial” such as setting goals and designing strategic plans to achieve those goals, communicating directives to other members of the organization, overseeing execution of the organizational strategy, and setting guidelines for motivating organizational members and assessing their performance. All leaders, regardless of their position, are engaged in the following core roles and activities provided by the four-factor theory of leadership proposed by Bowers and Seashore: support, in the form of leader behaviors that enhance a subordinate’s feelings of personal worth and importance; interaction facilitation, in the form of leader behaviors that encourage organizational members to develop close and mutually satisfying relationships; goal emphasis, in the form of leader behaviors that motivate organizational members to achieve excellent performance and fulfill the goals set for the organization; and work facilitation, in the leader behaviors that support achievement of the organizational performance goals, including activities such as coordinating, planning and scheduling, and providing subordinates with the requisite tools, materials, and technical knowledge necessary for them to do their jobs.¹ In addition, leadership roles and the focus of leader activities vary depending on where he or she is located within the organizational hierarchy. Finally, other factors such as the type of business engaged in by the organization, the environmental conditions that the organization is facing, the stage of the organization’s development, the leader’s role in the launch of the organization (e.g., a “founder”), and the scope of the organization’s global business activities will have an influence on the leader’s role and the behaviors needed in order for the leader to be effective.² The following list lays out various core leadership roles and activities derived from the research and observations described in this chapter.³

Core Leadership Roles and Activities

• Selecting and defining goals and objectives for the organization; designing strategic plans to achieve those goals and objectives; and identifying, promoting, and managing changes required to achieve future goals and objectives
• Communicating ideas about their vision for the organization and providing directions to other members of the organization regarding actions to be taken to realize the vision
• Designing and implementing an organizational structure that promotes efficient flow of information and collaboration among members of the organization to develop new products and services and solutions for problems and issues raised by customers
• Overseeing execution of the organizational strategy and establishing procedures for assessing the performance of organizational members
• Implementing human resources management practices that support their vision and provide members of the ­organization with access to training necessary to maintain and improve the skills required for them to positively ­participate in the execution of the vision
• Engaging in proactive pursuit and collection of ­information from internal and external sources and ­implementation of procedures for efficient analysis and dissemination of relevant information among members of the ­organization
• Engaging in behaviors that support organizational ­members and enhance their feelings of personal worth and importance
• Engaging in behaviors that facilitate interaction among organizational members; encourage members to develop close and mutually satisfying relationships; create high-quality teams; and train members of the organization on team building techniques
• Engage in behaviors that motivate organizational members to achieve excellent performance and fulfill the goals set for the organization using a range of techniques such as formal authority, role modeling, delegation of authority, setting specific and challenging goals, and adroit and intelligent use of rewards and punishments
• Engage in behaviors that support achievement of the organizational performance goals, including activities such as coordinating, planning and scheduling, and providing organizational members with the requisite tools, ­materials, and technical knowledge necessary for them to do their jobs
• Engage in behaviors consistent with service as a ­steward of the assets, resources, mission, reputation, and legacy of the organization including selection and ­development of potential future leaders and representing the organization with integrity in the communities in which it operates

Performance Imperatives for Senior Organizational Leaders

Zaccaro and Klimoski surveyed what they referred to as the “four research traditions in leadership” and claimed that it was possible and desirable to identify the most important factors or forces that exist in the operating environment of senior leaders and compiled a list that included the following types of “performance imperatives”: cognitive, social, personal, political, technological, financial, and senior staffing.⁴ They argued that these performance imperatives, each of which are summarized in the following list and discussed in more detail in the following sections, “define the context of executive leadership action and its effects on organizational effectiveness” and that served as the foundation for a model of leader performance that “specifically links executive characteristics with executive performance requirements and executive performance with organizational success.”⁵ Zaccaro and Klimoski also asserted that the ability to identify the requisite executive characteristics facilitated the design of effective leader assessment and development programs.

Checklist of Performance Imperatives for Organizational Leaders

• Does the leader have the requisite cognitive skills to effectively scan expansive and relatively unstructured external environments, process and make sense of the information collected from those scanning activities, and use that information to solve problems and forge long-term strategies?
• Does the leader have the social skills and competencies that are necessary and appropriate to forge and manage the relationships that are relevant to his or her position within the organizational hierarchy? Senior executives must deal with great social complexity because they are responsible for coordinating and supervising the activities of multiple business units that often have conflicting goals and objectives and must be able to create and maintain large social networks and build up social capital. On the other hand, leaders at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy are typically faced with more modest social demands because the number of relationships that are responsible is limited to a fewer subordinates and a smaller set of generally homogenous business units.
• Does the leader have the personal skills and attributes necessary for timely and skillful execution of activities such as career and reputation management and acquisition of authority and influence? Personal imperatives include the personal values that influence leaders in their decisions about the strategic direction of the organization and/or specific business units, and also play an important role in how executives go about developing and staffing their management teams.
• Does the leader have the requisite political skills for acquisition of power, including powers of persuasion; timely and judicious use of power, including the ability to handle and resolve conflicts arising out of attempts to use power; appropriate application of power sharing; building coalitions within the organization and with external strategic partners; and successfully representing and furthering the interests of the organization in its external environment?
• Does the leader have the skills necessary for coping with the dramatic and sweeping effects that technological advances have had on the way organizations operate and compete and the operational environment in which leaders must operate? Leaders must be able to identify the nature and rate of technological change; devise systems and procedures for gathering, distributing, and interpreting information; develop and implement strategies for achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage based on technological advances in production and human resources; and identify and implement strategies that leverage technology to design better control and support systems.
• Does the leader have the skills and tools necessary to successfully develop, implement, monitor, and adjust long- and short-term financial goals and objectives and strategies? Leaders of public companies must be particularly sensitive to the tendency to place too much emphasis on short-term thinking in order to generate the financial performance expected and demanded by investors and ignore advice that effective leadership requires a long-term orientation that includes both deliberate strategy and patient vision. The leader’s compensation arrangement can have a significant impact on how he or she addresses the financial imperative.
• Does the leader seek and hire candidates for positions at the senior staffing level in the organization, including other members of the executive team when the leader is the CEO, who possess, or can easily and quickly acquire, the skills, dispositions, and capabilities required to respond appropriately to the demands associated with the earlier-­described performance imperatives? Training and ­development programs should be designed around each of these imperatives so that prospective leaders can develop the skills that are most relevant to their actual operating environment. Senior leaders must also be adroit at ­making the right choices about the human resources needed to implement their decisions and ensure the long-term ­viability of the organization.

Cognitive Imperative—Information Processing and Problem-Solving

Zaccaro and Klimoski used the term “cognitive imperative” to refer to “the complex information processing and problem-solving demands that organizational leaders, particularly executives, need to confront in order to be successful.”⁶ They commented that these demands arise from the causal factors, many in number and tightly interconnected, that can impact organizational success and from the exponential increases in available data because of technological advances in information processing systems. Executives in particular must have the requisite cognitive skills to effectively scan expansive and relatively unstructured external environments, make sense of the information collected from those scanning activities, and use that information to forge long-term strategies.

Social Imperative—Creation and Management of Relationships

The “social imperative” highlights the behavioral activities and skills that leaders need to have in order to cope with the social complexity in their operating environment, specifically the number, nature, and variability of the relationships that are called upon to forge and manage in order to be successful.⁷ Zaccaro and Klimoski argued that the social skills and competencies required of a leader vary depending on the level in the organizational hierarchy at which the leader is operating. For example, executives at the top of the hierarchy must deal with great social complexity because they are responsible for coordinating and supervising the activities of multiple business units, many of which have conflicting goals and objectives. Executives must also have social skills to maintain relationships within the organization even as they are driving toward implementation of organizational-wide changes dictated by their decisions regarding the direction of the organization. In order to be successful in these activities, executives must be able to create and maintain large social networks and build up social capital. On the other hand, leaders at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy are typically faced with more modest social demands than executives because the number of relationships that are responsible is limited to a fewer subordinates and a smaller set of generally homogenous business units.

Personal Imperative—Career and Reputation Management

The “personal imperative” is concerned with “demands on leaders for the timely and skillful execution of such activities as career and reputation management and acquisition of power.”⁸ Zaccaro and Klimoski note that these issues are particularly important to leaders as they strive to make a personal impact on the organization and successfully move up the organizational ladder to positions of greater influence and authority. Personal imperatives include the personal values that influence leaders in their decisions about the strategic direction of the organization and/or specific business units. In addition, personal imperatives play an important role in how executives go about developing and staffing their management teams.

Political Imperative—Acquisition and Use of Power

The “political imperative” focuses on how leaders deal with the reality that the role of power in their activities necessarily means that they are operating in a political environment.9 Zaccaro and Klimoski note that attention to this imperative requires the development of skills related to acquisition of power, timely and judicious use of power, appropriate application of power sharing, and building coalitions. In order to be politically successful, leaders must develop and apply techniques of persuasion and learn how to handle and resolve conflicts arising out of attempts to use and/or acquire power. Executives must also have the political acumen to skillfully and successfully represent and further the interests of the organization in its external environment, particularly in the interorganizational relationships that are forged with strategic alliance partners, regulators, and members of the community in which the organization operates.

Technological Imperative—Management of Technological Change

The “technological imperative” recognizes the dramatic and sweeping effects that technological advances have had on the way organizations operate and compete and, of course, the operational environment in which leaders must operate.10 Technology generates more information and this leads to both opportunities and challenges. For example, among the nonroutine problems confronting leaders coping with the technological imperative are identifying the nature and rate of technological change, devising systems and procedures for gathering and distributing information, interpreting the massive amounts of data that are now available, and developing and implementing strategies for achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage based on technological advances in production and human resources.11 In addition, leaders need to consider how information technology changes their strategic decision processes and how such technology can be used to design better control and support systems.

Financial Imperative—Long- and Short-Term Strategic Planning

Senior leaders dealing with financial imperatives must continuously grapple with developing, implementing, monitoring, and adjusting long- and short-term strategies. In fact, Zaccaro and Klimoski observed that the financial imperative “is perhaps the most fundamental source of pressures on senior organizational leaders,” particularly among leaders of large corporations with publicly traded securities that are closely scrutinized by the investment community.¹² One of the biggest challenges is the inclination to engage in short-term thinking with respect to strategies on matters such as mergers and acquisitions in order to generate the financial performance expected and demanded by investor and ignore the advice of theorists that effective leadership requires a long-term orientation that includes both deliberate strategy and patient vision. The problem is exacerbated by executive compensation policies that are tilted toward rewards for meeting short-term performance milestones.

Senior Staffing Imperative—Building and Nurturing Senior Leadership

Zaccaro and Klimoski described the “senior staffing imperative” as representing the pressures on the organization to respond appropriately to the demands on its senior leaders represented by the earlier-described imperatives when making decisions regarding selection, training and development, and assessment of those leaders.¹³ In other words, Zaccaro and Klimoski argued that the focus of staffing decisions for senior organizational positions should be on identifying individuals who possess, or can easily and quickly acquire, the skills, dispositions, and capabilities required to cope with the performance imperatives that they had described. In addition, training and development programs should be designed around each of these imperatives so that prospective leaders can develop the skills that are most relevant to their actual operating environment. Another important aspect of the senior staffing imperative is how the most senior leader, the “CEO,” selects and interacts with the members of his or her executive team. Among other things, senior leaders must be able to support the pursuit of their decisions regarding organizational purposes by making the right choices about the human resources needed to implement those decisions.

Organizational Level and Leadership Roles and Activities

Zaccaro and Klimoski have argued strongly for careful consideration of organizational levels when studying the roles, functions, and recommended behaviors of organizational leaders.¹⁴ They have endorsed the views of those scholars who have argued that one can observe qualitative shifts in the nature of leadership across organizational leaders and that organizational leadership was moderated by several significant factors such as organizational structure, particularly the organizational level where the leader is operating; the degree of differentiation in function; and the place in organizational space.¹⁵ For support of their arguments, Zaccaro and Klimoski referred to the “patterns of organizational leadership” that Katz and Kahn associated with three different levels in the organizational hierarchy. First of all, operations at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy generally flow almost automatically through the administrative use of existing organizational structures and any problems that may arise are usually resolved using existing organizational mechanisms and procedures. In other words, because organizational activity at these levels is so institutionalized there are few situations that present opportunities for leadership action. Second, leaders at the middle levels of the organizational hierarchy do become involved in the embellishment and operationalization of formal structural elements; however, the success of leaders at these levels depends primarily on their ability to work effectively with both superiors and subordinates and their human relations skills. Finally, senior leaders at the top of the organizational hierarchy are most concerned with overall policy formulations (i.e., organizational strategies) and designing the organizational structure that is most appropriate for the effective and successful pursuit of such policies.¹⁶

In the same vein, Muczyk and Adler observed that organizations face three fundamental challenges: (1) developing and articulating the goals and purposes of the organization (i.e., just what is the organization attempting to accomplish); (2) creating an organizational environment in which employees are able to figure out what is required of them and then do their activities well; and (3) making a compelling case to each employee as to why he or she should get excited about working for the organization.¹⁷ They noted that meeting these challenges, and achieving the desired financial and operational “results” of the organization, is the job of the various “leaders” within the organization, not only the person sitting at the top of the organizational hierarchy but also managers, supervisors, and others toiling at all levels of that hierarchy. After surveying the extensive literature and theories relating to “leadership,” Muczyk and Adler also concluded that the elements of leadership and the recommended behaviors of leaders vary depending on a variety of factors, including the position of the leader in the hierarchy, the type of business engaged in by the organization, and the environmental conditions that the organization is facing.¹⁸ In order to capture these factors and provide organizational leaders with a way to figure out “what to do and when to do it,” they suggested a framework discussed in the following sections that included three levels of leadership: “transformational leadership,” which was also referred to as “big leadership,” “mid-range leadership,” and “small leadership.”¹⁹

Levels of Leadership

• Big (Transformational) Leadership: Senior leaders at the top of the organizational hierarchy are most concerned with overall policy formulations (i.e., organizational ­strategies) and designing the organizational structure that is most appropriate for the effective and successful pursuit of such policies.
• Mid-Range Leadership: Leaders at the middle levels of the organizational hierarchy do become involved in the embellishment and operationalization of formal structural elements; however, the success of leaders at these levels depends primarily on their ability to work effectively with both superiors and subordinates and their human ­relations skills.
• Small Leadership: Operations at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy generally flow almost automatically through the administrative use of existing organizational structures and any problems that may arise are usually resolved using existing organizational mechanisms and procedures—in other words, because organizational activity at these levels is institutionalized and there are few situations that present opportunities for leadership action.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership has been referred to as “a set of behaviors that transform followers’ commitment and energy beyond the minimum levels prescribed by the organization.”²⁰ Bass, one of the most well-known proponents of “transformational leadership,” has written that transformational leaders influence their subordinates in three significant ways: (1) increasing their awareness of the importance of their tasks and the need to perform those tasks well; (2) making them aware of their own needs for personal growth, development, and accomplishment; and (3) motivating them to strive for the “good of the whole” as opposed to simply pursuing their own personal agendas.²¹ Muczyk and Adler questioned whether Bass’ concept of “transformational leadership” actually delineated a meaningful distinction from things that all types of leaders should do and noted that the attributes described by Bass had previously been associated with successful leadership by numerous investigators and that transformational leadership as Bass described it could be found at all organizational levels.²² In response, Muczyk and Adler suggested that “… transformational leadership is “big leadership,” and an operational definition of transformational leader includes four ingredients—inspirational vision, dynamic personality (charisma), crisis situation, and dramatic acts to bring about the transformation … .”²³

Muczyk and Adler emphasized that the traditional notion of “transformational leadership” assumed that leaders were able to influence their subordinates “through inspiration created by the interaction of vision and charisma and enabled by position power.”²⁴ They noted that “vision” could be distinguished from the formal, long-term strategic plan that is developed through the assessment of organizational strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats in the organizational environment. Similarly, Kirkpatrick and Locke observed that “the core job of a leader … is to create a vision—a concept of what the organization should be.”²⁵ Creating the vision is not sufficient, however, and a leader must also be able to communicate this vision to his or her followers and, finally, participate in the development and implementation of general strategies for achieving the vision (i.e., a “strategic vision”). Vision-setting supported by corresponding appropriate values, as well as coping with uncertainty and ambiguity and fostering “creative destruction,” is also an integral leadership principle for advocates of the “new sciences” approach to leadership actions and development.²⁶

In order to fulfill their responsibilities with respect to the organizational “vision,” Kirkpatrick and Locke suggest that leaders must engage in several key activities²⁷:

• Communicating: Leaders must communicate their ideas about their vision for the organization to the followers and this can be done using a variety of tools and methods such as inspirational speeches, written messages, appeals to shared values, and, perhaps most importantly, acting as a role model with behaviors that are consistent with the vision.²⁸
• Structuring: Leaders must design and implement an organizational structure that promotes the most efficient flow of information downward, upward, and diagonally. Particular attention should be placed on making sure that information from customers regarding their needs and opinions of product quality and service is quickly collected, disseminated, analyzed, and incorporated into product development and customer service.
• Selecting and Training: Human resources management ­practices should support the vision and ensure that new hires have the traits and skills necessary to accept and implement the vision and that all employees have continuous access to the training necessary to maintain and improve the skills required for them to positively participate in the execution of the vision.
• Motivating: Kirkpatrick and Locke argue that leaders cannot implement their visions on their own and need the support and assistance of others throughout the organization. In order to gather the necessary support, leaders must be able to motivate their followers using a range of procedures such as formal authority, role modeling, building subordinate self-confidence, delegation of authority, setting specific and challenging goals, and enforcing pursuit of the vision through reasonable, fair, and intelligent use of rewards and punishments.
• Managing Information: One of the most important roles of the leader is managing information needed for the organization to pursue the vision and survive and thrive in its operating environment. Leaders proactively seek and collect information from sources throughout the organization, through both formal reporting mechanisms and simple “listening,” and from outside the organization. In addition, the leader takes responsibility for disseminating information throughout the organization so that subordinates understand why the leader is making certain decisions and how their activities fit into the pursuit of the goals and objectives ­associated with the vision.²⁹
• Team Building: Realizing the goals and objectives of the vision requires collaboration among large groups of people, often ­situated in widely dispersed areas of the organizational ­structure. Accordingly, leaders must focus on building effective teams, starting at the top with his or her own team of senior managers30 and then proceeding downward and across the organizational structure. The decisions made regarding hiring, training, and motivating have a big influence on the quality of teams throughout the organization, and people everywhere should be coached on team building so that they have the tools to create and operate effective teams on their own.
• Promoting Change and Innovation: Because the leader’s vision is a “desired future state” for the organization, he or she must be adroit at identifying, promoting, and managing the changes necessary to reach his or her goals for the future. Kirkpatrick and Locke note that being a “change agent” requires constant restructuring, continual retraining of the workforce to develop new skills, setting and pursuing specific goals for innovation and improvement and rewarding innovation, encouraging information flow, and emphasizing responsiveness to customer needs and concerns.

Kirkpatrick and Locke argued leaders cannot execute their vision for the organization on their own and must be able to communicate that vision to their followers and motivate them to work toward that vision with enthusiasm, commitment, and compliance.³¹ Kirkpatrick and Locke went on to identify and briefly describe the following suggested procedures that leaders can use in order to motivate their followers³²:

• Formal authority: Leaders can, and should, constructively use the power and authority associated with their formal position in the organizational hierarchy. Peters was quoted for his advice to leaders that they “[j]ust ask for it”³³ and Kirkpatrick and Locke admonished leaders to be direct and clear with their orders and instructions.
• Role modeling: Although exercising formal authority is ­important, leaders must do more than simply tell their ­followers what to do—they should be prepared to serve as role models for the desired and expected behaviors.³⁴ ­Kirkpatrick and Locke illustrate this principle by noting that leaders pushing for a customer orientation among followers must be consistently and visibly involved in talking with ­customers themselves.
• Building self-confidence: In order for followers to be truly ­helpful to the leader in sharing the burdens of ­pursuing the organizational vision, they must be ­adequately trained and supported so that they have the ­requisite self-confidence to carry out their designated roles. Building a self-confident workforce begins with recruitment, continues with training, and is maintained by ­decision-making processes that “empower” workers to act on their own, consistent with the organization’s goals and best interests.³⁵
• Delegating authority: Recruitment, training, and the resultant experience not only build self-confidence, but should facilitate effective delegation of authority downward in the organizational hierarchy so that leaders can concentrate on “big picture” issues without having to need to constantly meddle in the details. Kirkpatrick and Locke noted that “[g]iving autonomy and responsibility to employees also creates empowerment” and pointed out that Manz and Sims argued that delegating authority actually enhances the power of leaders by building a strong and committed team below them.³⁶
• Setting specific and challenging goals: Effective leaders establish specific and challenging goals for subordinates. Kirkpatrick and Locke argue that the use of challenging goals reinforces empowerment by demonstrating confidence in the abilities and commitment of subordinates; however, goal setting must be accompanied by regular feedback based on objective tracking of progress toward the specified goals (i.e., performance measurement). In addition, the groundwork should be laid for employee commitment to the goals through the various steps such as role modeling, training, and delegation of authority.³⁷
• Adroit and intelligent use of rewards and punishments: Effective leaders use the rewards and punishments available to them by virtue of their formal authority as a means for ensuring that followers respect and embrace the organizational vision and achieve the reasonable goals that have been established for them. Rewards and punishments not only have a direct impact on the particular follower, but also send a message to others in the organization. With respect to rewards, Kirkpatrick and Locke specifically note that “[r]ewards may include pay raises, promotions and awards, as well as recognition and praise … [e]ffective leaders do not just reward achievement, they celebrate it.”³⁸

Mid-Range Leadership

In addition to their critiques of various aspects of the concept of “transformational leadership,” Muczyk and Adler argued that it was important to remember that the need for “leadership” was not confined to the top of the organizational hierarchy but was required “practically everywhere” within the organization.³⁹ As such, they felt that more emphasis needed to be placed on understanding what they referred to as “mid-range leadership,” which they explained to be more “transactional” in nature because they were “predicated either explicitly or implicitly on the idea of a “social compact” between the leader and the subordinates.” The transactional exchange in this context begins with the construction of an agenda by the leaders followed by “bargaining” with the subordinates until the subordinates agree to comply with the agenda, perhaps in a modified form, because compliance has “something in it” for both sides. In other words, as Muczyk and Adler point out, this type of leadership “involves both downward and upward influences.”⁴⁰ In contrast, “big leadership” is not really an alliance of equals because the focus is on the leader and his or her vision and direction, and the influences and opinions of subordinates are largely ignored when decisions are made about how they are expected to behave.⁴¹

Muczyk and Adler noted that there were a number of theories of “mid-range leadership” that have attempted to describe the dynamics of exchange relationships between leaders and their subordinates and commented that work still needed to be done to identify the “constituent components of leadership,” or the “crucial leadership dimensions,” and sort out which of those were “normative” (i.e., “universal”) and which were “situational.” They suggested that a good place to start was the mid-range leadership theory proposed by Muczyk and Reimann based on observations of leadership behavior in North America, which had the following five leadership dimensions⁴²:

1. Consideration: Concern for people; good human relations; and treating subordinates with dignity, courtesy, and respect
2. Concern for production: Emphasis on challenging goals; achievement orientation; and high standards
3. Incentive for performance: Creating the strongest performance reward connection that is permitted within the applicable organizational constraints
4. Participatory or democratic leadership: Degree to which subordinates are involved in making significant day-to-day, work-related decisions, including goal setting
5. Direction: Amount of follow-up or directive behavior associated with execution of a decision that has been made or attainment of a goal that has been established

Muczyk and Adler argued that in order to be “effective,” leaders needed to score well on the first three dimensions (i.e., consideration, concern for production, and incentive for performance), regardless of the situational context and that the “prescription for these dimensions is a normative one.”⁴³ They claimed that research confirmed that those firms that were “well-run” placed a premium on “sound human relations, high performance expectations and rewards tied to accomplishment.” However, Muczyk and Adler went on to say that high scores on the first three dimensions were not all that was needed for leaders to be effective and that they also needed to display the appropriate mix of participatory and directive behavior for a given situation. In other words, the last two dimensions were “situational” and this meant that effective leaders were those persons who were able to read and understand the internal and external environment at a particular time and adapt their behavior accordingly by choosing from among four “leadership types” generated by combining the extremes of the “participation” and “direction” dimensions in the Muczyk and Reimann model: directive autocrat, permissive autocrat, directive democrat, and permissive democrat.⁴⁴

Small Leadership

Muczyk and Adler, along with others, have observed that the typical focus of transformational and transactional leadership activities is often problems and activities that are so large, complex, and daunting that leaders can often be so overwhelmed that “a paralysis ensues with respect to goal-directed behavior.”⁴⁵ McGill and Slocum have written that there are generally two reactions from persons in a leadership role when they are confronted with an “awesome challenge” or “overwhelming task”:

[t]he leadership challenge is so important and its magnitude so daunting that there is no way we can act upon it … [and] … [w]hatever action we can take is so insignificant as to have no appreciable impact on resolving the issues facing my organization.⁴⁶

The response of leaders in this situation according to Kotter, as well as other researchers, should be “planning for and creating short-term wins” so that people within the organization do not lose hope, give up and dig in their heels, and resist any type of change that would improve the situation for the organization.⁴⁷ In the eyes of Muczyk and Adler, “small successes along the way toward an overarching goal sustains momentum so essential to getting large tasks accomplished in a satisfactory manner by reinforcing commitment and boosting motivation.”⁴⁸

Recognizing the importance of, and pursuing, these “small wins” has been referred to as “small leadership” and it has been observed that this type of leadership is particularly significant near the bottom of the organizational hierarchy where subordinates are asked to complete tasks and activities that are small, yet vital, steps on the way to effective implementation of the two larger leadership dimensions. Muczyk and Adler observed that “there are countless “little” acts of leadership” and suggested that the concept could be illustrated by the model created by McGill and Slocum that proposed the following four categories of “little” acts of leadership which they argued created the requisite level of trust between leaders and subordinates to create a social compact between them that becomes the basis for high productivity and morale within the organization⁴⁹:

• Knowledge of the job: According to McGill and Slocum, leaders at all levels in the organization must have “a thorough knowledge of [their] job, not only in the details of the task, but in a grasp of the total situation as it is and as it may ­develop.”⁵⁰ Knowledge of their work is essential for a leader to be able to carry out their responsibilities with respect to training their subordinates, answering technical questions, improving the methods and processes used within the organization, and ensuring that the outputs of the organization meet or exceed the desired quality levels.
• “Say and do”: In order to be seen and perceived as a leader, one must continuously act in ways that are consistent with the published and celebrated values of the organization. In other words, a leader must be able to “walk the talk” in order to maintain his or her credibility. In addition, organizational practices created by the leaders must be consistent with organizational values. For example, if performance, quality, and customer services are highlighted as organizational values, subordinates must be recognized and rewarded for actions that support those values. Similarly, if an organization claims that employee involvement is important it had better make sure that employees are included in making decisions and setting goals and that information is made available to employees to allow them to be valuable participants in the decision-making process. Another example is the need for executives, managers, and supervisors to back up their pronouncements about “employees being their most important asset” by creating an employee-centered environment in which employees truly do feel valued and are comfortable approaching leaders about their work-related and personal problems.⁵¹
• Foster listening: Good listening is one of the most important elements of “small” leadership, and leaders must take steps to convince their employees that they are listening to employee opinions and concerns. McGill and Slocum recommend that organizations implement programs to make their ­leaders ­“better listeners” and that each leader seek out ways to improve their listening skills on their own.
• Context of choice: McGill and Slocum suggest that once employees are properly motivated and trained, it is best for managers and supervisors to use “general supervision” to oversee day-to-day activities, which means that they will “give directions in a general way, with explanations and suggestions, but leave details of method and sequence to the worker.” In other words, a general supervisor is somewhat like the “permissive” leader in the Muczyk/Reimann model in that he or she is more concerned about results than about the way in which the results were achieved. General supervision is a cost-effective form of job enrichment, because it requires no changes in technology or work methods and makes employees more self-reliant and prepares them to take on more responsibility. In addition, general supervision allows the manager or supervisor to focus on other functions associated with his or her position.

Muczyk and Adler commented that there are more opportunities for leaders to share the responsibilities associated with the leadership process as one moves farther down the organizational hierarchy.⁵² For example, “knowledge of the job” and “context of choice” in the McGill/Slocum model overlap with the leader’s responsibilities with respect to “work facilitation” mentioned elsewhere in this chapter and effective “small leadership” includes assigning certain work facilitation activities—coordinating and scheduling, for example, to subordinates. In addition, other aspects of “work facilitation,” such as providing subordinates with the necessary technical knowledge, can be done most efficiently as part of the “knowledge of job” component of “small leadership”—in other words, by supervisors working daily with their subordinates on achieving a continuous stream of incremental improvements.

Cross-Cultural Competencies for Global Leaders

Leadership is an essential element of any organizational effort to set and achieve meaningful goals and objectives and support the aspirations of organizational members. Accordingly, organizational leaders have always paid some degree of attention to identifying and implementing effective leadership styles and behaviors even when organizational activities and human resources have been limited to a single cultural setting. However, as globalization increases it becomes even more imperative for organizations to appreciate the need to identify and select leaders with the skills to oversee managers and employees operating in a diverse cultural environment including the ability to recognize that cultural differences do impact the effectiveness of leaders and the success of the strategies they choose to as the means for leading. Various suggestions have been made regarding the competencies that leaders need to develop in order to be effective in overseeing organizations that include a multiplicity of diverse cultures. For example, a suggested list of important cross-cultural competencies for global leaders might include the following⁵³:

• Leaders need to understand business, political, and cultural environments worldwide.
• Leaders need to learn the perspectives, tastes, trends, and technologies of many other cultures.
• Leaders need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures.
• Leaders must be able to adapt to living and communicating in other cultures.
• Leaders must learn how to relate to people from other cultures from a position of equality rather than cultural superiority.
• Leaders must be able to create a transcultural vision for the direction of the organization and develop and use communication skills that will allow them to articulate and implement that vision in a diverse workplace.

Dickson et al. wrote that “cross-cultural leaders,” like cross-cultural researchers, must be open to differences they encounter when interacting with other cultures, show respect for cultures and cultural values that are different from their own, be able to understand and overcome their own acculturation, and recognize what aspects of their own value systems are a product of their own cultural experience.⁵⁴ Another relevant article included a definition of a “transcultural creative leader” as someone who is able to learn how to “(1) transcend their childhood acculturation and respect very different cultures; (2) build cross-cultural partnerships of mutual trust, respect, and obligation; (3) engage in cross-cultural creative problem solving to resolve conflicts; and (4) help construct third cultures in various operations.”⁵⁵

The information from the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (“GLOBE”) project and similar studies can assist leaders in a number of ways.⁵⁶ For example, leaders reviewing the findings can gain a better understanding of their own culturally based biases and preferences and the fact that persons from other societal cultures may have different preferences and expectations regarding leadership behaviors. One area of concern is “ethnocentrism,” which has been described as the tendency for individuals (e.g., leaders) to place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their observations of others and the world.⁵⁷ Although it is natural for people to give priority and value to their own beliefs, attitudes, and values over those of other groups, ethnocentrism endangers a cross-cultural leader’s ability to act effectively if he or she perceives that his or her culture is “better” than the culture of others and thus is unwilling or unable to recognize the unique perspectives of people from different cultures. For example, a U.S. manager who endorses the concept of individual achievement that is strongly embedded in U.S. cultural values may have difficulty leading employees from societies that prefer collectivity—group members working closely together to achieve shared goals—unless the leader is able and willing to recognize and respect the beliefs and values that prevail in the other societal culture. This does not mean that the leader should abandon all of his or her culturally based beliefs and values; however, the leader must be mindful of any tendency toward ethnocentrism and be able to anticipate in advance what the reaction might be to certain decisions, policies, or modes of communication in other cultural contexts.

A concept, and another potential danger for effective leadership, which is related to ethnocentrism is “prejudice,” which has been aptly defined as a largely fixed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual or group that is based on faulty or unsubstantiated data.⁵⁸ Racial prejudice is a well-known phenomenon in the United States and other countries; however, other types of prejudices can and do impact relations between leaders and followers and among members of groups and organizations including sexism, ageism, and homophobia. In general, everyone holds some degree of prejudice, and prejudices can be difficult to overcome given that “enlightenment” requires investment of time and effort to repair the faulty data upon which the prejudice is based and often going against the predominant attitudes and beliefs of others in a community or organizational context. However, effective leaders simply cannot afford to let prejudices impede their judgment or poison the environment in which their followers must operate and collaborate and progressive organizations have launched substantial efforts to reduce and eradicate prejudice and cultural misunderstanding among their members. As previously noted, an effective cross-cultural leader is someone who shows respect for different cultures and cultural values and who has transcended childhood acculturation.

In addition, the information about how other societies perceive leadership can be used by leaders to adapt their styles and behaviors in order to be more effective when working with subordinates with different cultural backgrounds. A specific application would be learning new communication methods that can be used to convey ideas and directions, and gather information, more effectively in different cultural contexts. Information is part of the broader process of directly experiencing different cultures in order to understand how they work and reduce the anxiety that accompanies interactions with thoughts and behaviors that are “new.” The more that a leader knows about the cultural attitudes of his or her followers the less likely they are to succumb to stereotyping and they can begin to identify and practice culturally appropriate leadership behaviors and communications skills. Successful cross-cultural communications require attention to a number of details including customs regarding opening and closing conversions, taking turns during conversations and interruptions, the use of silence and humor, and knowing when to close off a presentation of opinion or debate on a particular topic.⁵⁹

Finally, the findings from the GLOBE project and other cross-­cultural studies can be used by leaders and their organizations to improve the design of employee training programs, increase the effectiveness of global business teams, and facilitate integration of human resources acquired in cross-border mergers and acquisitions activities.⁶⁰ These are all key issues for expanding businesses given the significant investment that firms make in sending home country managers and employees to foreign countries and supporting the activities of foreign subsidiaries. It is essential for the leaders of global organizations to provide their managers and employees with the tools necessary to collaborative efficiently and productively with colleagues spread around the world. For example, a strong global business team can facilitate customization of products to suit local requirements and promote transfer of new ideas and technologies from centers of excellence outside of the home country of the organization.

The advice to leaders hoping to be successful in identifying and coping with cultural diversity has been simply put by Bhawuk and Brislin:

To be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures.⁶¹

---

Bennett and his colleagues created the “developmental model of intercultural sensitivity” as a guide to the steps that people can be expected to go through from the time that they are confronted with cultural differences to the point where they can incorporate an understanding of those differences into the way that they think and act so as to be able to interact effectively and cooperatively with people from different cultural backgrounds.⁶² They suggested six stages, the first three being more “ethnocentric” (i.e., the person’s own culture is experienced as central to his or her reality) and the second three being more ethnorelative (i.e., the person’s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures). The ethnocentric stages include denial of differences—the person’s own culture is experienced as the only reality; defense against differences (reversal)—other cultures are recognized yet viewed negatively and the person’s own culture is perceived as being the only one that is “viable”; and minimization of differences—superficial cultural differences are accepted but other cultures are not yet accepted as viable alternatives. The ethnorelative stages include acceptance of differences—the person finally acknowledges that his or her own culture is experienced as just one of several viable alternatives; adaptation to differences—using newly developed communication skills a person begins to frame his or her reference to understand other cultures and be understood by persons from other cultures; and integration of differences—internalization of bicultural or multicultural frames of reference.

¹ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

² Id. For discussion of the roles and activities of organizational founders, see “Entrepreneurship: A Library of Resources for Sustainable Entrepreneurs” ­prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project
(www.seproject.org).

³ See also Dudley, D.D. 2018. This Is Day One: A Practical Guide to Leadership That Matters. New York, NY: Hachette Books.

⁴ Zaccaro, S.J., and R.J. Klimoski. 2002. In The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction the Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 26–30. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Zaccaro and Klimoski commented that their performance “imperatives” were derived “both inductively from reviews of case studies and work description studies [citations omitted] and deductively from several models and perspectives of organizational leadership [citations omitted].” Id. at 5 (text includes detailed list of citations to some of the studies and models reviewed by Zaccaro and Klimoski). See also Zaccaro, S.J., and R.J. Klimoski, eds. 2002. The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders, 12 vols. Pfeiffer.

⁵ Zaccaro, S.J., and R.J. Klimoski. 2002. In The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. ­Klimoski, 1–41, 30. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

⁶ Id. at p. 26.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id. at p. 27.

⁹ Id. at pp. 27–28.

¹⁰ Id. at pp. 28–29.

¹¹ Id. at p. 9.

¹² Id. at p. 29.

¹³ Id. at pp. 29–30.

¹⁴ Id. at pp. 12–13.

¹⁵ Id. at p. 4.

¹⁶ Id. (citing Katz, D., and R.L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.) Other researchers that have suggested models that incorporate differences across levels of organizational leadership include Jacobs, T.O., and E. Jaques. 1987. “Leadership in Complex Systems.” In Human Productivity Enhancement, ed. J. Zeidner. New York, NY: Praeger; Mumford, M.D., S.J. Zaccaro, F.D. Harding, E. Fleishman, and R. Reiter-Palmon. 1993. Cognitive and Temperament Predictors of Executive Ability: Principles for Developing Leadership Capacity. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; and Bentz, V.J. 1987. Explorations of Scope and Scale: The Critical Determinant of High-Level Effectiveness. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

¹⁷ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17 (citing Huey, J. February 21, 1994. “The New Post-Heroic Leadership.” Fortune, pp. 42–45).

¹⁸ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

¹⁹ For further discussion of the “three levels of leadership,” see Antonakis, J., and R.J. House. 2002. “An Analysis of the Full-range Leadership Theory: The Way Forward.” In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B. Avolio and F. Yammarino, 3–34. Amsterdam, Netherlands: JAI; and Antonakis, J., R.J. House, J. Rowold, and L. Borgmann. 2010. A Fuller Full-Range Leadership Theory: Instrumental, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership. Unpublished Manuscript. With regard to the second work, the terms “instrumental” and “transactional” leadership are similar to the “small” and “mid-range” leadership, respectively, discussed in the text.

²⁰ Muczyk, J.P., and D. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4, pp. 277–86, 280. (citing Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990. “Transformational Leader Behaviors and their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Leadership Quarterly 1, no. 2, pp. 107–42).

²¹ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. (citing Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York, NY: Free Press.)

²² Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. See also Conger, J.C., and R. Kanungo, eds. 1988. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Conger, J.A. 1989. The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

²³ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. Further information on transformational leadership is available from a number of sources including Cherry, K. 2018. “Transformational Leadership: A Closer Look at the Effects of Transformational Leadership.” November 19, 2018. https://verywellmind.com/what-is-transformational-leadership-2795313; and https://legacee.com/transformational_leadership/

²⁴ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

²⁵ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 56.

²⁶ Fairholm, M. 2004. “A New Sciences Outline for Leadership Development.” The Leadership and Organization Development Journal 25, no. 4, p. 369. See also Wheatley, M. 2006. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. For further discussion, see “History and Evolution of Leadership Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).

²⁷ The following discussion of key leader activities with respect to pursuit and achievement of their organizational vision is adapted from Kirkpatrick, S.A., and E.A. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 56–58.

²⁸ On leadership communications, see Booher, D. 2017. Communicate Like a Leader: Connecting Strategically to Coach, Inspire, and Get Things. DonePaperback–Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

²⁹ Kirkpatrick and Locke astutely observe that leaders must be “efficient” when disseminating information, just as they are with other activities, and that they must take the time to organize information in a manner that is most useful to subordinates and which does not overwhelm them. Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 57.

³⁰ Team building among the members of the senior management team is an important subject that is discussed in more detail in Hambrick, D.C. 1987. “The Top Management Team: Keys to Strategic Success.” California Management Review 30, no. 1, pp. 1–20.

³¹ Kirkpatrick, S., and E. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 57. Other leader activities required to implement the leader’s vision for the organization are discussed elsewhere in this chapter.

³² Id. For further discussion of motivation in the workplace, see “Human Resources: A Library of Resources for Sustainable Entrepreneurs” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).

³³ See. Peters, T., and K. Rodabaugh. 1988. Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York, NY: Harper Paperbacks.

³⁴ Kirkpatrick and Locke cited Bandura for the observation that people may learn as much or more by observing models than from the consequences of their own actions. See Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

³⁵ Kirkpatrick and Locke referenced Conger’s observation that “empowerment” is the process of strengthening subordinates’ belief in their capabilities. See Conger, J.A., and R.N. Kanungo. 1988. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

³⁶ Kirkpatrick, S.A., and E.A. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 57. (citing Manz, C., and J. Sims. 1989. Superleadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.)

³⁷ For evidence and further information on goal setting, see Locke, E., and G. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

³⁸ Kirkpatrick, S.A., and E.A. Locke. 1991. “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, 57.

³⁹ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17 (citing Muczyk, J., and B. Reimann. March-April 1987. “The Case for Directive Leadership.” The Academy of Management Executive 1, no. 3,
pp. 301–11); and Muczyk, J.P., and R. Steel. 1998. “Leadership Style and the Turnaround Executive.” Business Horizons, pp. 39–46.

⁴⁰ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. (citing Muczyk, J.P., and B. Reimann. 1987. “The Case for Directive Leadership.” The Academy of Management Executive 1, no. 3, pp. 301–11.); and Muczyk, J., and R. Steel. March-April 1998. “Leadership Style and the Turnaround Executive.” Business Horizons, 39–46.

⁴¹ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. (citing Porter, L.W., R.W. Allen, and H.L. Angle. 1981. “The Politics of Upward Influence in Organizations.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, eds. L. Cummings and B. Staw, 109–49, 3 vols. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.)

⁴² Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. (citing Muczyk, J., and B. Reimann. 1987. “The Case for Directive Leadership.” The Academy of Management Executive 1, no. 3, pp. 301–11). Muczyk and Adler acknowledged that their theory of “mid-range leadership” was also influenced by the works of various scholars, including Fiedler, F. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; Hersey, P., and K. Blanchard. 1982. Management of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; House, R.J. 1971. “A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16, pp. 3–24; Blake, R., and J. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.; and Oesch, T. ­February 26, 2018. “Effective Leadership Training for Mid-Level Leaders.” https://trainingindustry.com/articles/leadership/effective-leadership-training-for-mid-level-leaders/

⁴³ Muczyk, J.P., and D. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4,
pp. 277–86, 278. (citing Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.) It should be noted, however, that Muczyk and Holt observed that even among these “universals,” differences could be found based on the cultural profile of the society within which the leader was acting. Muczyk, J.P., and D. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4, pp. 277–86, 282–83. For further discussion of the impact of societal culture on these leadership dimensions, see “Cross-Cultural Leadership Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).

⁴⁴ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17. Muczyk and Adler noted that there might be confusion as to why a distinction is made between “participation” and “direction”; however, they explain that the concepts are complementary and that it is possible and realistic to distinguish between the process that a leader uses to make decisions about goals and objectives and the leader’s style with respect to managing and overseeing how the decision is actually executed by subordinates (i.e., the amount of delegation by the leader), regardless of the level of participation that the subordinates had in making the decision in the first place. These distinctions become clearer in the descriptions of the four leadership types, or styles, elsewhere in this library.

⁴⁵ Muczyk, J.P., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁴⁶ McGill, M.E., and J.W. Slocum, Jr. 1998. “A Little Leadership, Please?” Organizational Dynamics. Winter.

⁴⁷ Kotter, J.P. March/April 1995. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 59–67.

⁴⁸ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁴⁹ Id. citing McGill, M.E., and J. Slocum. 1988. “A Little Leadership, Please?” Organizational Dynamics. Winter.

⁵⁰ Id.

⁵¹ Muczyk, J.P., E.B. Schwartz, and E. Smith. 1984. Principles of Supervision: First-and Second-Level Management. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Interestingly, this guidance includes elements of the “paternalistic” leadership or management style frequently discussed in the literature and especially associated with organizations grounded in Asian societal cultures.

⁵² Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁵³ See Adler, N.J., and S. Bartholomew. 1992. “Managing Globally Competent People.” Academy of Management Executive 6, no. 3, pp. 52–65, 53; and Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating Across Cultures. New York, NY: Guilford; See also Kumar, R., B. Anjum, and A. Sinha. 2011. “Cross-Cultural Interactions and Leadership Behaviour.” International Refereed Research Journal 2, no. 3, p. 151; Caligiuri, P., and I. Tarique. October 2012. “Dynamic Cross-Cultural Competencies and Global Leadership Effectiveness.” Journal of World Business 47, no. 4, p. 612; and Hewlett, S. October 13, 2016. “The Attributes of an Effective Global Leader.” Harvard Business Review.

⁵⁴ Dickson, M.W., D.N. Den Hartog, and J.K. Mitchelson. 2003. “Research on Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6, pp. 729–68, 758 (citing Graen, G.B., C. Hui, M. Wakabayashi, and Z.M. Wang. 1997. “Cross-Cultural Research Alliances in Organizational Research.” In New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, eds. P. Earley and M. Erez, 160–89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.)

⁵⁵ Graen, G., and C. Hui. 1999. “Transcultural Global Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: Challenges and Implications for Development.” In Advances in Global Leadership, ed. W. Mobley, 19–26, 1 Vols. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

⁵⁶ The discussion in this section is derived from Northouse, P. 2006. Leadership: Theory and Practice, 326, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

⁵⁷ Id. at p. 303.

⁵⁸ Id. at p. 304.

⁵⁹ Derived from Schuler, A.J., and D. Psy. 2018. “Tips for Successful Cross Cultural Communication.” http://schulersolutions.com/cross_cultural_communication.html (accessed December 10, 2018). As a condition of use of his writings, Dr. Schuler requires the following notice: “Dr. A.J. Schuler is an expert in leadership and organizational change. To find out more about his programs and ­services, visit www.SchulerSolutions.com or call (703) 370-6545.”

⁶⁰ Bing, J.W. 2004. “Hofstede’s Consequences: The Impact of his Work on Consulting and Business Practices.” Academy of Management Executive 18, no. 1, pp. 80–87.

⁶¹ Bhawuk, D., and R. Brislin. 1992. “The Measurement of Intercultural Sensitivity using the Concepts of Individualism and Collectivism.” International ­Journal of Intercultural Relations 16, no. 4, pp. 413–36, 416.

⁶² The summary in this paragraph is adapted from Connerley, M.L., and P.B. ­Pedersen. 2005. Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills, 47–49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, For further discussion, see, e.g., Bennett, M.J. 1993. “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Education for the Intercultural Experience, ed. R. Paige, 21–71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press; Hammer, M.R., M.J. Bennett, and R. Wiseman. 2003. “Measuring Intercultural Sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, no. 4, pp. 421–43.