Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Impact of a Global Leadership Development Program on
German and Chinese Managers1, 2
Jingjing Wang*
It is generally understood that some effective leadership behaviors of Asian
managers differ from those of Western managers (GLOBE study). It has
also been debated controversially whether Asian learners can benefit from
Western learning approaches. Taking these two aspects into consideration,
this study examines whether a global leadership development program
from Western countries has as much impact on Chinese managers as on
German managers.
This empirical study is conducted within one global corporation originating
from Germany. The data (N =193 at t1 and N= 162 at t2) were collected
from Germany and China between 2009 and 2011. To meet the high
standards of cross-cultural study, the instruments used in this study have
undergone cross-cultural equivalence examinations via MDS and SEM.
Based on Schwartz’s four higher order values, a cultural value comparison
is conducted. The result shows that the Chinese leaders working in the
Western company hold significant different values to the German managers
in Germany.
The impact of the global leadership development program on German
managers and Chinese managers is compared by using effect sizes and
statistical significance tests (ANCOVA). The investigation involved three
different rating perspectives: leaders’ self-rating, direct-reports’ rating and
superiors’ rating.
In terms of gaining knowledge, both the German and the Chinese
managers benefited from the training. Regarding the behavioral transfer
and leadership results, the effect sizes of the different leadership behaviors
trained in the development program vary from small to large depending on
the nationality, the perspectives of the raters and the leadership behavior
dimensions.
Based on the core results of the study, implications for the globalization of
leadership development are discussed.
Field of Research: Strategic Human Resource Management, International Business and
Leadership
1. Introduction
The world is getting more and more interconnected and global. This interconnection
among countries and the occurrence of globalization open up a good deal of opportunities
for all of us, but at the same time they also generate challenges. One of the challenges is
the acknowledgement of the different cultural values, practices and degree of refinement
in different parts of the world (House, 2004).
Facing these differences, the practitioners of leadership development have first focused
on the conceptualization of global leadership development programs in the last decade.
However, the concepts have not been evaluated sufficiently.
*Dr. Jingjing Wang, Leadership Trainer, Consultant and Researcher at Daimler Corporate Academy and
Human Resource Management and Leadership at Faculty of Law, Business and Economics, University of
Bayreuth, Germany. Email: jingjing.wang@gmx.de
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Concurrently, the Chinese economy is becoming increasingly indispensable. Zhang et al.
(2008) concluded that Chinese culture has a significant influence on its people
management practices, while the Western management theories have a great impact on
task-related operations.
In addition, a number of scholars have found that Chinese learners learn differently than
Western learners. In the Western world, the situated and constructivist learning principles
have been evaluated as effective learning principles. Until now, Chinese learners have
been described as being rote learners or, in other words, memory learners (Kennedy,
2002).
Facing the differences between China and the Western World, the striking question is not
only how the Western world should react to China (Dhanaraj and Khanna, 2011), but also
how should China respond to the Western world. Therefore, along with the growth and the
economic transition of China, it is becoming essential for China and the Western world to
get to know each other.
Following these thoughts, this study will empirically explore the impact of a Global
Leadership Development Program (GLDP) on German and Chinese managerial leaders.
2. Literature Review
Over the past 100 years, many leadership theories have been developed in North America
and Western Europe. Scholars have celebrated these results and practitioners worldwide
are learning from and applying them. However, these theories may embody only the
Western point of view (Ayman and Korabik, 2010).
An increasing number of pioneering scholars have become aware of this situation and
have begun to reflect on the generalizability of the Western leadership theories.
Hofstede (1993) highlighted three idiosyncrasies of American management theories which
are not necessarily shared by other cultures: an emphasis on market processes, an
emphasis on the individual, and an emphasis on managers rather than workers.
Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz & Dorfman (1999) referred back to the characteristics
of North American leadership theories mentioned by House (1995): “focusing on
individualistic rather than collectivistic values; emphasizing assumptions of group
incentives; stressing follower responsibilities rather than rights; assuming hedonistic rather
than altruistic motivation; and assuming the centrality of work and democratic value
orientation” (ibid: 227).
Similarly, Westwood and Chan (1995) argued that the leadership concepts stemming from
North America represent individualism, assertiveness and independence. They “reflect a
particular ideology in which a tension between espoused democratic and participative
principles, and inherent power inequalities is managed” (ibid: 70). Westwood and Chan
(1995) addressed that leadership varies in different contexts and suggested that
“headship” is “a more encompassing and contextually meaningful term in East Asia” (ibid:
70). On the one hand, “headship” reflects the family-based tradition of East Asia; on the
other hand, it symbolizes legitimized power.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
The GLOBE study derived a large amount of knowledge regarding the cross-cultural
leadership research community based on the findings from 62 societies. The results have
shown that the social-cultural difference has a much larger influence on organizational
practices than industrial sector does (Brodbeck, Hanges, Dickson, Gupta & Dorfman,
2004).
Kühlmann (2008) examined the applicability of various leadership theories in an
international context and compared these with empirical findings. The conclusion can be
drawn that most leadership theories could be used in different cultures, however, desired
leadership behaviors differ from culture to culture.
Wang (2015) summarized these differences between the behaviors of Chinese and
Western managers, refer to Table 2.1:
Table 2.1: Comparison of Chinese and Western approaches to management and
leadership
Chinese Approaches
Western Approaches
Place more value on collective action
Try to maintain harmony
Tend to be more aligned with individual
behavior
Try to accommodate dissent
Tend to reject impartial and non-partisan Support more participative and nonapproaches
partisan approaches
Have more unequal distribution of power
Have less unequal distribution of power
Epitomize a concept of “headship”
Epitomize a concept of “leadership”
Have higher level of tolerance for ambiguity
Have less tolerance for ambiguity
Underline long-term relationships with
followers
Emphasize the influence of the external
environment
Less emphasis on universal laws and
principles
Strive for implicit exchanges
Relationships fade over relatively short
periods
Solicit “one best approach”, irrespective of
the circumstances
Tend to create general principles for a
variety of circumstances
Strive for explicit exchange
Participative Leadership is “nice to have”
Participative Leadership is a “must have”
Support subordinate by providing ideas and Support
subordinate
by
delegating
control
responsibility
Address altruistic motivation of followers
Address individual motivation of followers
Tend to
followers
show
responsibility
towards Tend to show influence towards followers
To develop a leadership development program applied globally, universally effective
leadership should be chosen and trained. In the course of the discussion regarding
universally effective leadership, Bass (1997) proposed that transformational leadership
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
involves virtually universal leadership behaviors. He highlighted the universality of the
transactional transformational leadership paradigm by referring to evidence gathered from
all continents except Antarctica.
Based on thei research results, the GLOBE study also further attested to the universality
of (charismatic) transformational leadership as an effective leadership behavior across
cultures. This leadership behavior is also called value-based leadership in the GLOBE
study.
The learning approach is also an indispensable factor of leadership training design and
have a dramatic impact on the transfer of training content.
In the field of off-the-job management and leadership development, a variety of
constructivist training methods have been developed in the West, such as: Role Playing
and Discussion (Moreno, 1955); Games & Simulations (Leavitt and Bass, 1964) and
Reflection (Boud, Keogb & Walker, 1994); Action Learning (Marquardt, 2004) and
Feedback (Frese et al., 2003) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) (Dochy, Segers, Van
den Bossche & Gijbels, 2003).
By using these methods, practitioners “facilitate” the learning of participants, instead of
“teaching” the participants. In the view of constructivists, “teaching” is used more often
within formal educational systems such as in schools or universities. It connotes strong
instructional learning characteristics and the receptive position of the learners.
In practice, particularly in the field of human resources development, the terms “training”
and “facilitating” are more commonly used. “Facilitating” implies that the learners have
large responsibility and room for self-direction. “Training” is used when the level of selfdirection is somewhere between “teaching” and “facilitating”.
If a practitioner regards herself or himself as a “facilitator”, it likely means that she or he
wishes to emphasize that the learners should have a constructivist learning environment
and that the methods mentioned above will be applied. “Trainers” may use both
instructional and constructivist learning principles. Some have also argued that
“facilitating” is one of the necessary competencies of trainers (Stolovitch and Keeps,
2011). In this study, the terms “trainer” and “facilitator” are used interchangeably.
For Chinese learners, the constructivist learning principles are not well-known. However,
an increasing number of studies have shown that constructivist learning principles can
also be effective for Chinese adult learners, even though more evidence is needed.
(Kennedy, 2002; Watkins, 2007).
The research objective of this study - the GLDP - applied constructivist learning principles.
It can be expected that the Chinese adults/managerial leaders will be able to adopt this
learning approach.
The impact of training has been increasingly considered and studied. Among the various
discussions on what the measurement of the training impact involves, in the late 1950s,
Kirkpatrick proposed four levels of measurement (Kirkpatrick, 1959; Alliger and Janak,
1989). The four levels are: Reaction, Learning, Behavior and Results.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
A couple of decades later, Collins and Holton (2004) developed and defined six outcome
categories for their meta-analyses of managerial leadership development programs (refer
to Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: Six outcome categories (Collins and Holton, 2004: 225)
Subjective
Objective
Principles, facts, attitudes, and Principles, facts, attitudes and
Knowledge
skills learned during or by the skills learned during or by the end
end
of
training
as of training by objective means,
communicated in statements of such as number of errors made or
opinion, belief, or judgment number of solutions reached, or by
completed by the participant or standardized test
trainer
Measures
that
evaluate Measures that evaluate changes
Behavior
changes
in
on-the-job
behavior
in on-the-job behavior perceived
/Expertise
perceived by participants, or by
participants,
or
global
global perceptions by peers or a perceptions by peers or a
supervisor
supervisor
that
evaluate Tangible result, such as reduced
System Results Measures
changes in on-the-job behavior costs, improved quality or quantity,
/Performance
perceived by participants, or promotions, and reduced number
global perceptions by peers or a of errors in making performance
supervisor
ratings
Collins and Holton (2004) reported the different effect sizes between the subjective
measurement and objective measurement in terms of the expertise improvement and
assumed that the raters, such as superiors and subordinates, can detect the change after
the training easier than the participants themselves.
The low convergence of multi-raters in performance rating has hinted to scholars
researching the training effect that the effect size may also differ according to different
rating sources (Taylor et al., 2009).
To focus on the rating differences of the multi-sources, Taylor et al. (2009) conducted a
meta-analysis of 107 studies and studied the effect size of managerial training based on
four rating sources (self, superior, peer and subordinate) and revealed that the population
effect size estimates of self-rating have the highest score (δ = .64), superior and peer
rating are in the middle (δ = .53 and δ = .26 respectively) and the subordinate rating
shows the lowest score (δ = .13).
Moreover, an additional subset of 14 studies was meta-analysed separately. These 14
studies have included all the four rating sources (self, superior, peer and subordinate).
Similar results have been achieved. Self-rating produced the largest transfer effect (δ =
.52), superior and peer rating are in the middle again (δ = .33 and δ = .34 respectively)
and subordinate rating had a substantially smaller effect (δ = .004).
Besides the factors inflating self-rating like in the performance rating, “trainees may
exaggerate the true impact of training because [...] to indicate otherwise would reflect
poorly on themselves, on training staff, or both” (Taylor et al., 2009: 106). Therefore, in
light of the concern that self-rating is biased, researchers should avoid relying on the
trainee’s self-rating (Eden, Geller, Gewirtz, Gordon-Terner & Inbar, 2000).
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Before the impact of the GLDP in China and in Germany is analysed, it is necessary to
have a clear understanding of managerial values across the two different samples: the
Chinese leader sample and the German leader sample.
There is no reason to believe that country or nationality is a “proxy” for cultural values
(Gerhart and Fang, 2005; Schaeffer and Riordan, 2003). The core question is whether the
Chinese leaders’ values really differ from German leaders’ values, as claimed by many
previous studies.
Schwartz (1994) showed that the values of Hierarchy and Mastery in China are much
higher than in German culture. By applying the SVS, Ralston et al. (1996) discovered that
among managers from four countries (USA, Russia, Japan and China), the Openness to
Change score of American managers is the highest, while Chinese managers show the
lowest (Ralston et al., 1996).
Based on the previous results from other scholars, the following hypotheses are
developed:
HA: The values of German and Chinese leaders differ.
HA1: The German leaders’ score on Openness to Change is higher than the Chinese
leaders’ score and the German leaders’ score on Conservation is lower than the Chinese
leaders’ score.
HA2: The German leaders’ score on Self-enhancement is lower than the Chinese leaders’
score and the German leaders’ score on Self-transcendence is higher than the Chinese
leaders’ score.
The transactional transformational leadership paradigm has been considered to be a
virtually universally applicable concept (Bass, 1997). Felfe (2006) provided evidence that
transformational leadership correlates positively with these three success criteria, even in
Germany. Based on these aforementioned presuppositions, the following hypotheses are
developed:
HB1: Before the GLDP, the higher the German direct-reports score the leaders for
Transformational Leadership, the higher they will score the leaders for success criteria:
Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction.
The Transformational Leadership is a virtually universal model and has been shown to be
applicable in China as well; therefore, the hypothesis HB1 effects are also expected from
the Chinese sample.
HB2: Before the GLDP, the higher the Chinese direct-reports score the leaders for
Transformational Leadership, the higher they will score the leaders for success criteria:
Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction.
Since the superiors’ perspectives should show objective advantages as well, the superiors’
ratings are also expected to show similar results:
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
HB3: Before the GLDP, the higher the German superiors score
Transformational Leadership, the higher they will score the leaders for
Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction.
HB4: Before the GLDP, the higher the Chinese superiors score
Transformational Leadership, the higher they will score the leaders for
Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction.
the leaders for
success criteria:
the leaders for
success criteria:
For the success criteria, the self-perspective bears the risk of having an above-average
effect. The other-perspective is considered as more valid (Rathgeber, 2005). Therefore,
the rating of direct-reports and superiors should be seen as more convincing and
appropriate. The self-perspective is not examined.
According to the Transformational Leadership theory, the learning goals of the GLDP
provided above can be classified into two different categories, as shown in Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.1: Link between the contents of GLDP and the transformational leadership theory
Figure 2.1: Link between the contents of GLDP and the transformational leadership theory
Supporting intellectual motivation
Seeking new solutions to the problem
Intellectual
Stimulation
Gaining a holistic perspective
Transformational
Leadership
Listening to individuals attentively
Considering individual differences
Individualized
Consideration
Considering individual needs of leadership
Based on previous research results, assumptions regarding the impact of the GLDP are
proposed at the learning/knowledge level, the behavioural transfer level and the
leadership result level based on different perspectives.
HC1: The German leaders who attended the GLDP will score better in a knowledge test
than the German leaders who did not attend.
HC2: The Chinese leaders who attended the GLDP will score better in a knowledge test
than the Chinese leaders who did not attend.
HC3: According to the leaders’ self-perspective, after the training, the German leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher scores for Individualized Consideration and
Intellectual Stimulation respectively than the German leaders who did not attend it.
HC4: According to the leaders’ self-perspective, after the training, the Chinese leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher score for Individualized Consideration and
Intellectual Stimulation than the Chinese leaders who did not attend it.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
HC5: According to the direct-reports’ perspective, after the training, the German leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher score for Individualized Consideration and
Intellectual Stimulation than the German leaders who did not attend it.
HC6: According to the direct-reports’ perspective, after the training, the Chinese leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher score for Individualized Consideration and
Intellectual Stimulation than the Chinese leaders who did not attend it.
HC7: According to the superiors’ perspective, after the training, the German leaders who
attended the GLDP show higher score for Individualized Consideration and Intellectual
Stimulation than the German leaders who did not attend it.
HC8: According to the superiors’ perspective, after the training, the Chinese leaders who
attended the GLDP show higher score for Individualized Consideration and Intellectual
Stimulation than the Chinese leaders who did not attend it.
HC9: According to the direct-reports’ perspective, after the training, the German leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher score for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction
than the German leaders who did not attend it.
HC10: According to the direct-reports’ perspective, after the training, the Chinese leaders
who attended the GLDP show higher score for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction
than the Chinese leaders who did not attend it.
HC11: According to the superiors’ perspective, after the training, the German leaders who
attended the GLDP show higher score for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction than
the German leaders who did not attend it.
HC12: According to the superiors’ perspective, after the training, the Chinese leaders who
attended the GLDP show higher score for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction than
the Chinese leaders who did not attend it.
Because of the above-average effect, the leaders’ self-rating is not considered as
appropriate for evaluations at the result level. According to the direct-reports’ perspective
and superiors’ perspective, the above assumptions are proposed.
3. The Methodology and Model
To test the hypotheses, the extent of impact of the GLDP on the learning/knowledge level,
the behavioural transfer level and the leadership result level, quasi-experimental designs
are used.
Four research groups are identified based on the country names and abbreviations of
Experimental (E) and Control (C) in the design:
• (G)erman (E)xperimental Group (GE hereafter)
• (G)erman (C)ontrol Group (GC hereafter)
• (C)hinese (E)xperimental Group (CE hereafter)
• (C)hinese (C)ontrol Group (CC hereafter)
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Finally, different quasi-experimental designs are chosen for measuring the different levels
of impact. For the Learning level, the design used control groups but no pre-test. This
design is also called a Post-test-Only Design With Non-equivalent Groups (Shadish et al.,
2002). At the level of Behavioural Transfer and Leadership Results, the design included
the pre-tests for all the groups.
Shadish et al. (2002) emphasized the control group is of minimal advantage, unless a pretest is also conducted for both the control group. Therefore, in this study, pre-tests (t1) are
conducted both for the experimental and the control groups. In psychological, educational
and behavioural treatment research, this type of design is called pre-test-post-test with
control (PPWC) (Carlson and Schmidt, 1999).
Moreover, to capture different perspectives regarding behavioural transfer, two additional
rater categories are also included. One is the direct-reports of the leaders; the other is
superiors of the leader. These two additional ratings will deepen the understanding of
leadership training transfer.
Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and a
Knowledge Test are used as instruments.
Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) proposed that bias statistics should be examined and
reported in cross-cultural studies, because item accuracy is necessary for the observed
cross-cultural differences. Moreover, all of the applied instruments should possess
equivalence as a property of a specific cross-cultural comparison.
For the SVS, Multidimensional Scaling (MD) is used. The SVS was developed on the
basis of exemplary cross-cultural research methodology (Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997).
Replicating the same method to examine equivalence is considered adequate. Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) is chosen to examine the construct equivalence of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). For more details, refer to (Wang, 2015).
Data collection consisted of two cycles for each assigned group. In the first cycle the team
leaders, their superiors and one direct-report were asked to join the research and to fill out
the online questionnaires (SVS and MLQ) at t1.
For both control groups, e-mails were used to recruit subjects with two requirements. One
was that they should fill out the SVS and MLQ if they were interested in participating in the
research. The second requirement was that they should nominate one of their directreports to the researcher via e-mail, so that the researcher could send further
questionnaires to the direct-reports as well. In order to encourage participating, the
researcher promised to create personal value and leadership profiles for them based on
the questionnaires.
For both experimental groups, five German training groups and three Chinese training
groups were asked to participate in the research by filling out the SVS and MLQ.
Additionally, the researcher visited the training groups personally and asked for
nominations for a direct-report. Similarly, the researcher promised to send the personal
value and leadership profiles based on the questionnaires.
Subsequently, the researcher asked the participants’ superiors and the individually
nominated direct-report to join the research and to fill out the corresponding
questionnaires, whenever the leaders themselves agreed to participate in the research.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
For the second cycle, 7 months later (t2), the subjects received once again the
corresponding questionnaires from the researcher. Since the first three months are
dedicated to the leadership training, this means that four months after the training, the
subjects of experimental groups were asked to fill out the MLQ again.
The subjects of the control groups were asked to fill out the MLQ again and to conduct the
knowledge test online.
Table 3.1 – 3.3 show the dynamic of the leaders’ responses for the three questionnaires
(SVS and MLQ). The participants of the knowledge test are not considered separately.
Table 3.1: Dynamics of subject participation in terms of leaders’ response
Groups Requeste
Participation t1 in Participation t1 in Participation t2
d
SVS
MLQ
MLQ
GE
79
76
46
45
GC
53
50
40
no need
CE
48
46
34
34
CC
50
49
42
no need
in
Table 3.2: Dynamics of subject participation in terms of direct-reports’ responses
Groups Requeste
Participation t1 in MLQ
Participation t2 in MLQ
d
GE
79
50
46
GC
53
49
45
CE
48
38
32
CC
50
45
41
Table 3.3: Dynamics of subject participation in terms of superiors’ responses
Groups Requeste
Participation t1 in MLQ
Participation t2 in MLQ
d
GE
79
54
40
GC
53
44
36
CE
48
38
30
CC
50
40
31
4. The Findings
To test the hypothesis HA, a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is applied. The results
show that the hypothesis A (Wilks’ Lambda = .678; p < .000) can be confirmed, which
means that using underlying dimensions as independent variables, the values of the
German leaders and the Chinese leaders differ from each other.
Table 4.1: Tests of equality of group means of testing hypothesis HA
Independent Variables
Wilks’ Lambda F
df1
df2
Openness to Change
.921
18.274
1
213
Conservation
.722
82.072
1
213
Self-enhancement
.999
.246
1
213
Self-transcendence
.996
.814
1
213
Sig.
.000
.000
.621
.368
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
German and Chinese leaders place different levels of importance on each of the four
values. German leaders value Openness to Change more than Chinese leaders; Chinese
leaders value Conservation more than German leaders. The hypothesis HA1 is confirmed.
The hypothesis HA2 is rejected because the p values of the significance testing are larger
than .05. This means that German leaders do not value Self-enhancement less than
Chinese leaders and German leaders do not value Self-transcendence more than Chinese
leaders.
Before the correlation analysis is conducted, the normal distribution of the variables has
been tested. While the Transformational Leadership in both samples has a normal
distribution, neither Extra Effort nor Effectiveness and Satisfaction have a normal
distribution. Therefore, the Spearman Correlation is conducted (Field, 2005).
First of all, from the direct-reports’ perspective, the German sample provides evidence that
Transformational Leadership correlates significantly with Extra Effort, Effectiveness and
Satisfaction. The correlation coefficients are .735, .757 and .729 respectively. The
hypothesis HB1 is confirmed.
The Chinese sample provides evidence that Transformational Leadership correlated
significantly with Effectiveness and Satisfaction and the correlation coefficients are .900
and .784 respectively. The hypothesis HB2 is also confirmed.
From the Superiors’ perspective, the correlation coefficient ranges from .511 to .770 in the
German sample; in the Chinese sample, it ranges from .594 to .786. Therefore, the
hypotheses HB3 and HB4 are confirmed as well.
These results suggest that Transformational Leadership can be considered as universally
effective leadership, even though the Extra Effort from the Chinese direct-reports’
perspective and the Satisfaction from the German superiors’ perspective due to the low
reliabilities are not tested.
On the learning/knowledge level, based on the ANOVA test, it can be concluded that both
the German participants and the Chinese participants have gained some new knowledge.
Both the German and the Chinese managerial leaders who attended the GLDP have
obtained significantly higher scores for the leadership principles taught in the program
than the German and Chinese leaders who did not attend the GLDP.
Since this knowledge test is a post-test with control group design (ESPOWC), the following
formula is applied to calculate the effect sizes (Carlson and Schmidt, 1999: 852):
d = (T2 −C2)/ST2C2 = ESPOWC
The pooled standard deviation can be calculated based on the following equation:
St2c2 = ((nt −1)S t22 + (nc −1)S c22 / (nt + nc −2) )0.5
The results show that, both in Germany and in China, larger effect sizes are achieved: d =
.86 in Germany and d = .65 in China. This is convincing evidence of the impact of the
GLDP on the learning level for decision-makers of the leadership development. Even
though the effect size in Germany is larger than in China, based on the ANOVA
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
significance test, the score of the German sample is not significantly higher than the score
of the Chinese sample.
On the behavioural level, the results derive from ANCOVA and effect sizes too (refer to
Table 4.2), because it is not unproblematic to evaluate the research results only based on
the significant test. Many scholars have suggested the effect size as an indicator. For the
measurement of effect size, the following formula is used (Carlson and Schmidt, 1999):
d = [(T2 –T1) – (C2 –C1)]/ST1C1 = ESPPWC
and
St1c1 = ((nt −1)S t21 + (nc −1)S c21 / (nt + nc −2) )0.5
Table 4.2: Overview of effect sizes (ESPPWC) and ANCOVA results
Measures
Germany
China
Leaders’ Direct- Superiors’
Leaders’ DirectSuperiors’
Selfreports’ Rating
Selfreports’ Rating
rating
Rating
rating
Rating
Behavioural Transfer
Intellectual
Stimulation
Individualized Consideration
.02
.17
-
/
.15
.18
.41
.01
.11
.39*
Leadership Results
Extra Effort
.05
.62*
.62*
Effectiveness
.02
.55
.17
.41
Satisfaction
/
/
.24
- means the reliability coefficient is too low to conduct further calculation.
/ means that the score has decreased in the experimental group, therefore the effect
size is not calculated.
italic effect size means that the preliminary assumptions of ANCOVA of this scale have
been violated.
For the Chinese Leaders’ Self-rating, the scale Individualized Consideration has been
examined. The Chinese leaders who attended the GLDP do not have a significantly higher
score than the Chinese leaders who did not attend the GLDP. Based on the German
Direct-reports’ Rating, the trained leaders do not have a significantly higher score than the
untrained leaders for Intellectual Stimulation or for Individualized Consideration. This is the
same situation with the Chinese Direct-reports’ Rating. Based on the Chinese Superiors’
Rating, the Individualized Consideration of the leaders who have attended the GLDP is
significantly higher than that of the leaders who did not attend it, but the Intellectual
Stimulation is not. In Germany, no significant result emerged.
In addition, the effect sizes have been calculated as well (Carlson and Schmidt, 1999;
Bortz and Doering, 2006). As can be seen in Table 4.2., from the Leaders’ Self-rating, the
Individualized Consideration of the trained Chinese leaders just reaches a very small
effect size (d = .01), which can also be ignored.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
From the direct-reports’ perspective, the trained German leaders also show small effect
sizes (d = .02 for Intellectual Stimulation, d = .18 for Individualized Consideration). Due to
the decrease of the score at t2, the effect size for the trained Chinese leaders with regard
to Intellectual Stimulation is not calculated, while the effect size with regard to
Individualized Consideration reaches d = .11. It has been pointed out that the relatively
larger effect size of German leaders for Individualized Consideration (d = .18) also
benefited from the decrease of the control group; otherwise the effect sizes would be
slightly lower. It can be concluded that both in Germany and in China, the effect sizes are
smaller than expected.
From the Superiors’ Rating, the trained German leader sample reaches effect sizes of d =
.17 for Intellectual Stimulation and d = .41 for Individualized Consideration respectively.
Similarly, the trained Chinese leaders sample also shows similar effect sizes of d = .15 for
Intellectual Stimulation and d = .39 for Individualized Consideration, even though both also
slightly benefited from the score decrease of the control group.
Interestingly, the scale Individualized Consideration in both countries has received higher
effect sizes than the scale Intellectual Stimulation and both from the direct-reports’
perspective and the superiors’ perspective. This phenomenon may be due to the fact that
it is easier to transfer the idea of Individualized Consideration than the idea of Intellectual
Stimulation for the newly promoted leaders. More research about the difficulties of the
different transformational leadership scales for learning is needed.
According to Wolf (1986), an effect size of .25 is significant for education. It can be
concluded that, based on the Superiors’ Rating, both in Germany and in China the
Individualized Consideration has reached certain significant effect sizes and achieved
medium effect sizes. These results are similar to the results of the meta-analyses of
Collins and Holton (2004) and Taylor et al. (2009). They also provide evidence for the
applicability of the GLDP for Chinese managerial leaders. On the results level, ANCOVA is
applied in a similar vein. The direct-reports’ view and the superiors’ view were taken into
consideration.
The results for German samples show that, in contrast to leaders who did not attend the
GLDP, the leaders who attended received significantly higher scores for the Extra Effort
according to the Superiors’ Rating. Two other scales show the tendency that the leaders
who attended the training have higher scores than the managers who did not attend the
training. However, they are not significant. According to the Superiors’ Rating, scores of
the Chinese group which attended the GLDP for Extra Effort are also significantly higher
than scores of the group which did not attend. However, due to the violation of one
preliminary assumption of ANCOVA, this result should be interpreted with caution.
It is to be noted that the scores for Satisfaction from the direct-reports’ perspective have
decreased in all four groups. This result may be due to the fact that when the data were
collected, the MNC was facing a financial crisis. This crisis triggered dissatisfaction in the
organization. The managerial leaders might have had no chance to increase the
satisfaction of the followers if, for instance, they had to announce “bad news” very often.
The scores for Satisfaction of the control groups have decreased, too.
The effect sizes for the success criteria are measured as well. The results are comparable
with the effect magnitude of other studies. For the Direct-reports’ Rating, both effect sizes
in Germany are very small. In contrast, the Effectiveness in China from the Direct-reports’
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Rating show an effect size of d = .17 (the score of the control group decreased at t2). It
can be concluded that on the result level as well, the effect sizes from the direct-reports’
perspective in both countries are very small.
Based on the Superiors’ Rating, the effect sizes of Extra Effort and Effectiveness in
Germany are d = .62 and d = .55, which are large effect sizes, even though Effectiveness
does not become significant with the ANCOVA. In China, all three scales show medium to
large effect sizes, from d = .24 to d = .62.
It can be noticed that from the Superiors’ Rating, medium to large effect sizes are
achieved both in Germany and in China. Since the Superiors’ Ratings have generally
larger effect sizes than the Direct-reports’ Ratings, the question as to why the superiors
perceived more improvement than the direct-reports perceived can be raised. First of all,
this result is in keeping with the results of multi-rater research and indicates that the
perspective of superiors and the perspective of the direct-reports have low convergence.
The two studies of Taylor et al. (2009) showed the same pattern. Their meta-analysis of
the first 107 studies showed that rating by superiors has the highest population effect size
estimate (.53) and rating by subordinates has the lowest score (.13). For the additional
analysis of 14 studies, rating by superiors’ higher effect size (.33) and rating by
subordinates has a substantially smaller effect (.004).
Different reasons have been explored in the theoretical discussion. For instance, since
superiors are the only person who officially have the task of evaluating the performance of
their direct-reports, their ability to judge should not be underestimated. Their perspective
may provide more validity for the evaluation and reflect reality better.
For this study, an additional reason can be assumed, namely, the superiors are more
likely to be informed by the participants about what they learned during the GLDP. This
information might have given the superiors a hint about what they would be doing
differently. It is less likely that the participants would have informed their direct-reports
about what they learned during the GLDP. This different information level may lead to the
different effect sizes.
Nevertheless, superiors may have less opportunity to observe the daily leadership
situations than the direct-reports; therefore, the judgment of the direct-reports may show
better validity.
5. Conclusions and Implications
While various prominent studies have shown evidence that the Chinese workforce exhibits
distinctive cultural values compared to many Western workforces, for instance in
Germany, some scholars also presume that MNCs are likely to select a workforce in other
countries whose values tend to match the corporate culture of the MNC than represent
their own national characteristics (Gerhart, 2009; Bass, 1990). That means that the
Chinese managerial leaders working at an MNC originating from Germany may have
similar cultural values to the German leaders.
The result shows that the cultural values are significantly different between the German
and the Chinese managerial leaders. This finding is consistent with the results of many
well-known empirical studies. It also supports the idea that due to the different cultural
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
values, the Global Leadership Development Program should be cautiously investigated in
these two cultural contexts.
However, according to the previous result of Schwartz (1994), it is assumed that the
Chinese perceive Self-enhancement as more important than the Germans and that the
Germans perceive Self-transcendence as more important than the Chinese do. This part
of the assumption is not confirmed.
This result supports the discussion that the corporate culture does have an influence on
the values of the workforce, not only in China, perhaps also in Germany. Since most of the
studied leaders have worked in the MNC for some years, it is conceivable that their values
have been influenced by the corporate values (Bass, 1990), in this case with regard to the
values Self-enhancement and Self-transcendence.
Aside from some scales with unacceptable reliabilities, the correlations of
Transformational Leadership with the three success criteria (Extra Effort, Effectiveness
and Satisfaction) are significantly positive both in Germany and in China. This result
provides further evidence for the statement that transformational leadership is a nearly
universal effective leadership style. As well as being effective in North America, it is also
effective in Germany and in China. However, consistency bias throughout the
questionnaire answers might have occurred. This means that the respondents might have
tried to give congruent responses to show consistency in thinking for questions concerning
leadership success as well as leadership behaviour (Weisberg, Kronsnick & Bowen,
1996). Therefore, this result should still be interpreted with caution.
Regarding the impact of the GLDP, it can be summarized that both German and Chinese
leaders who attended the GLDP have achieved a medium to large effect, in particular from
the superiors’ perspective. However, the direct-reports did not experience a significant
difference after the GLDP. It seems that the GLDP per se needs some improvement to
enhance the effect sizes in both countries. For instance, compared to the effect of learning
contents regarding Individualized Consideration, it seems that the learning contents
regarding the Intellectual Stimulation are not well transferred by the participants. To
address this concern, the program developer could enhance the effectiveness of these
learning contents in particular, for example raising systemic questions and applying
systemic principles.
In the course of globalization and along with increasing importance of Asian markets,
leadership development strategy of Western MNCs is facing an additional challenge to
develop their managerial leaders in Asian countries. For instance, the MNC originating
from Germany, where the study took place, has to set up a strategy of developing their
Chinese managerial leaders. A global strategy of leadership development is needed.
However, can a leadership development program be implemented globally? Can a
globally implemented leadership development program stemming from the West fit the
leadership practices of Chinese leaders? Chinese leaders have different cultural values
and engage in different leadership practices. To what extent does a leadership
development program of an MNC have to be localized and to what extent can it be
globalized? These questions should be further discussed by the decision-makers (Wang,
2015).
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
End Notes
1. Many thanks to Mr. Uwe Steinwender, Senior Executive in Germany and Ms. Jing
Man, Senior Executive in China for providing opportunities to collect research data
within their organization.
2. Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Torsten M. Kühlmann at University of Bayreuth, Germany
for supervising this research.
References
Alliger, GM and Janak, EA 1989, Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later.
Personnel Psychology, 42(2):331–342.
Ayman, R and Korabik, K 2010, Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American
Psychologist, 65(3):157–170.
Bass, BM 1990, The Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. Free Press, New York.
Bass, BM 1997, Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2):130 – 139.
Bortz, J and Doering, N 2006, Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation fuer Human und
Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and evaluation for human and social
scientists]. Springer, Heidelberg, 4th edition.
Boud, D, Keogh, R and Walker, D 1994, What is reflection in learning? In Boud, D, Keogh,
R, and Walker, D, editors, Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, pages 7–17.
Routledge Falmer: Taylor and Francis Group, New York.
Brodbeck, FC, Hanges, PJ, Dickson, MW, Gupta, V and Dorfman, PW 2004, Societal
culture and industrial sector influences on organizational culture. In House, RJ,
Hanges, PJ, Javidan, M, Dorfman, PW and Gupta, V, editors, Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 Societies, volume 20, pages 654–668.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Carlson, KD and Schmidt, FL 1999, Impact of experimental design on effect size: Findings
from the research literature on training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6):851–
862.
Collins, DB and Holton, III, EF 2004, The effectiveness of managerial leadership
development programs: Ameta-analysisofstudiesfrom1982to2001. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 15(2):217–242.
Den Hartog, DN, House, RJ, Hanges, PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla, SA and Dorfman, PW 1999,
Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2):219 – 256.
Dhanaraj, C and Khanna, T 2011, Transforming mental models on emerging markets.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4):684–701.
Dochy, F, Segers, M, Van den Bossche, P and Gijbels, D 2003, Effects of problem-based
learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13:533–568.
Eden, D, Geller, D, Gewirtz, A, Gordon-Terner, R, Inbar, I, Liberman, M, Pass, Y,
Salomon-Segev, I and Shalit, M 2000, Implanting pygmalion leadership style through
workshop training: seven field experiments. Leadership Quarterly, 11:171–210.
Felfe, J 2006, Validierung einer deutschen Version des Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5x Short) von Bass und Avolio (1995) [Validation of a
German version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5x Short) by
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Bass and Avolio (1995)]. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits- u. Organisationspsychologie AO,
50(2):61–78.
Field, A 2005, Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, London.
Frese, M, Beimel, S and Schoenborn, S 2003, Action training for charismatic leadership:
Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational
communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56(3):671–698.
Gerhart, B and Fang, M 2005, National culture and human resource management:
assumptions and evidence. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16(6):971–986.
Gerhart, B 2009, Does national culture constrain organization culture and human resource
strategy? The role of individual level mechanisms and implications for employee
selection. In Martocchio, JJ and Liao, H, editors, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, pages 1–48. Emerald Group Publishing.
Hofstede, G 1993, Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management
Executive, 7(1):81–94.
House, RJ 1995, Leadership in 21st century: a speculative enquiry. In Howard, A, editor,
The changing nature of work. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1st edition.
House, RJ 2004, Illustrative examples of GLOBE findings. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,
Javidan, M, Dorfman, PW, and Gupta, V, editors, Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 Societies, pages 3–8. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Kennedy, P 2002, Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult
(Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
21(5):430–445.
Kuehlmann, TM 2008, Mitarbeiterfuehrung [Leading People]. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.
Kirkpatrick, DL 1959, Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of ASTD,
13(11):3–9.
Leavitt, HJ and Bass, BM 1964, Organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,
15:371–398.
Marquardt, MJ 2004, Optimizing the power of action learning: Solving problems and
building leaders in real time. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Moreno, JL 1955, Sociodrama: A method for the analysis of social conflicts. Beacon
House, Beacon, NY.
Ralston, DA, Holt, DH, Terpstra, RH and Yu, KC 1996, The impact of national culture and
economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia,
Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, pages 177–207.
Rathgeber, K 2005, 270°-Beurteilung von Fuehrungsverhalten: Interperspektivische
Uebereinstimmung und ihr Zusammenhang mit Erfolg - eine Befragung in der
Automobilindustrie [270° - evaluation of leadership behavior: Interperspective
congruence and its relationship with success - a survey in the automotive industry].
Unpublished Dissertation, Chemnitz.
Shadish, WR, Cook, TD and Campbell, DT 2002, Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston New
York.
Schaeffer, BS and Riordan, CM 2003, A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practice approach. Organizational Research
Methods, 6:169–215.
Schwartz, SH 1994, Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values.
In Kim, U, Triandis, HC., Kâgitcibasi, C, Choi, SC, and Yoon, G, editors,
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications, pages 85–119.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Stolovitch, HD and Keeps, EJ 2011, Telling Ain’t Training. American Society for Training &
Development, Alexandria, VA, 2nd edition.
Taylor, PJ, Russ-Eft, DF, and Taylor, H 2009, Transfer of management training from
alternative perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1):104–121.
Van de Vijver, F and Leung, K1997, Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wang, J 2015, Globalization of Leadership Development: An empirical study of impact on
German and Chinese managers. SpringerGabler, Wiesbaden.
Watkins, D 2007, What works: Is Western educational research relevant for educational
reforms in Asia? Conference Paper Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy:
Culture, Knowledge and Understanding, pages 1–20.
Weisberg, HF, Krosnick, JA and Bowen, BD 1996, An Introduction to Survey Research,
Polling, and Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 3rd edition.
Westwood, RI and Chan, A 1995, The transferability of leadership training in the East
Asian context. Asia Pacific Business Review, 2(1):88–92.
Wolf, FM 1986, Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. CA: Sage,
Beverly Hills.
Zhang, ZX, Chen, CC, Liu, LA and Liu, XF 2008, Chinese traditions and Western theories:
Influences on business leaders in China. In Chen, CC and Lee, YT, editors,
Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices, pages
239–271. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.