Leadership & Organization Development Journal Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings John R. Schermerhorn, Michael Harris Bond, Article information: To cite this document: John R. Schermerhorn, Michael Harris Bond, (1997) "Cross‐cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 Issue: 4, pp.187-193, https:// doi.org/10.1108/01437739710182287 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739710182287 Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Downloaded on: 30 May 2019, At: 20:54 (PT) References: this document contains references to 41 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9712 times since 2006* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2008),"Cross-cultural leadership", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1 Iss 3 pp. 439-445 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810883873">https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810883873</a> (2004),"The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 321-338 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785">https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785</a> Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:318888 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) John R. Schermerhorn Jr College of Business, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA Michael Harris Bond Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong Individualism-collectivism and power distance are among the dimensions of national culture frequently discussed in the leadership literature and in executive development programmes. Examines cross-cultural leadership implications of the likely interaction of collectivism and high power distance. Includes a call for more awareness of how collectivism and power distance may together influence workplace behaviour. Suggests that this awareness needs to be incorporated in crosscultural leadership training and research agendas. Our complex global economy has dramatically increased the frequency with which managers from one culture are called on to lead work groups and teams composed of members from different cultures. An important example is the expatriate manager working with host-country staff. Among the possible settings for such cross-cultural leadership encounters, Asia – an area of the world wellrecognized for both its economic importance and cultural uniqueness (Rohwer, 1995) – is a significant case in point. This paper addresses the leadership challenges that can arise when expatriate managers come face-toface with the collectivism and high power distance common in Asian cultures (Hofstede, 1980, 1984). Vignette 1: A newly-arrived American expatriate manager is about to hold her first meeting in Malaysia with local staff of her firm’s subsidiary company. The meeting agenda is to establish the group’s specific work objectives for the coming months. She plans first to offer her ideas based on home office expectations. Then, after listening to group discussion and receiving inputs, she expects to reach clear agreement on action plans, performance targets, and time lines. Although somewhat anxious about this first formal meeting with the group, she is also confident. After all, she has read a fair amount about Malaysia and attended firmsponsored pre-departure orientation on Malaysian culture. She is enthusiastic and wants to do well in her first international assignment. Cross-cultural leadership and the expected culture Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 © MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739] The prior scene, albeit fabricated, represents a situation faced by most new expatriate managers – leading an initial task-oriented meeting of a work group or team composed of members from one or more different cultures. What may not be apparent in the example is the potential for this expatriate manager to be “surprised” when leadership difficulties are encountered. Importantly, she has arrived in Malaysia with a set of pre-existing notions regarding the way local workers will behave culturally. These form what might be called the expected culture – that is, the Malaysian culture that she expects to find based on prior cultural training, personal anticipations, and even suggestions from conversations with others. The expected culture is a lay theory at best. It should be carefully tested and refined in the reality of the new work setting. But the very fact that it exists at all can make such cultural “learning” difficult. Especially under the stressful conditions often accompanying a new international assignment (Adler, 1991), the leader is likely to be more influenced by a priori understandings, however inadequate or incomplete, than by cultural realities. To the extent that these cultural expectations are flawed, the leader’s actions (coupled with the responses they generate) may create additional problems of their own. This cycle of action and reaction activated in the leaderfollower relationships will most likely confound an already complicated situation, and make it even harder for the newcomer to accomplish the all-important cultural learning. This paper examines cross-cultural leadership challenges in specific respect to the cultural dimensions of collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 1980, 1984). Both dimensions are commonly used to describe and examine cultural variations of significance to managerial leadership (Adler, 1991). They are also represented in alternative frameworks for understanding cultural differences (Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 1988; Trompenaars, 1994). Using elements of cultural self-representation theory (Erez and Early, 1993) and the role of language as a cultural vehicle (Hofstede, 1984), along with a South-east Asia example, the paper distinguishes between “expected” and “manifest” cultures and calls for more attention to the challenges of leaderfollower differences in collectivism and power distance. Organizations, collectivism, and power distance Hofstede’s (1980, 1984) 40-country study established the empirical foundations for two dimensions of national culture formally specified as individualism-collectivism and power [ 187 ] John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 [ 188 ] distance. Despite the availability of other cultural frameworks (Schwartz, 1994; Trompenaars, 1994) and criticisms (Yeh, 1989), this research has proved valuable both in terms of research extensions (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) and in conceptual overlap with emerging models (Smith et al., 1995). Given the nature of organizations, furthermore, the individualism-collectivism and power distance formulations seem particularly relevant and enduring. Organizations are complex social systems in which people work both individually and in groups (Blau and Scott, 1962; Likert, 1961), and are structured within authority and status hierarchies (Etzioni, 1963). Collectivism, according to Hofstede, “stands for a preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives, clan, or other in-group to look after them, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”; he contrasts this with individualism described as “…a preference for a loosely knit social framework in a society in which individuals are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only” (1985, pp. 347-8). In respect to collectivism, Erez and Early (1993) note that the general distinction is between an emphasis on self-interest in individualistic cultures and an emphasis on group interests in collectivist cultures. In specific reference to management and leadership dynamics, individualists can be expected to emphasize individual action and self-interest, while collectivists act and view themselves more as group members (Singelis et al., 1995). Power distance, in turn, is defined by Hofstede as “the extent to which the members of a society accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (1985, p. 348). The construct tends to be identified in particular with the willingness of the less powerful members of a society to accept their lower status and authority roles vis-à-vis the more power powerful members (Adler, 1991). Specific to the organization context, members of high power distance cultures are more likely to be accepting of, and comfortable with, structured authority relationships than are members of low power distance cultures. Importantly, individualism-collectivism and power distance may be discussed and understood in an independent or linear fashion even though they are empirically related (Bond, 1996; Hofstede, 1980, 1984, 1985). When describing results of the original study from which these cultural dimensions were specified, however, Hofstede states: “In a factor analysis of country mean scores on 32 value statements (variables) for 40 countries (cases), I find three main factors: one combining Power Distance with Collectivism…” (1985, p. 348, emphasis added)[1]. Indeed, the indices of individualism-collectivism and power distance are significantly correlated (–0.67) in his study, and a graphical plot of these data shows that individualism is associated with lower power distance while collectivism is associated with high power distance (Hofstede, 1980, 1984). Nonetheless, Hofstede went on to consider the two dimensions separately, and justified the decision on three grounds: 1 that the statistical correlation disappears when the analysis is controlled for countries’ economic wealth; 2 that the two dimensions are conceptually different; 3 that even though most collectivist cultures are also high in power distance, this is not always the case, as for example France or Costa Rica (1984, 1985). Hofstede’s decision to separate individualism-collectivism and power distance has attracted scrutiny (Bond, 1996; Erez and Early, 1993). Bond, in particular, notes that other theorists (e.g. Triandis et al., 1988) associate collectivism with hierarchy, and further argues that “…had Hofstede not split Power Distance and Individualism, it might have reduced the tendency to reify these constructs as separate and have simplified our search for external correlates of the unified concept” (1994, p. 13). Support for his view that the concepts “represent one empirical reality” is found in Bond’s (1996) empirical comparison of data from three different data samples: Chinese Culture Connection (1987), Hofstede (1980) and Schwartz (1994). This analysis identified a single factor that included both individualism (0.86) and power distance (–0.76), and led Bond to suggest that his results “…recommend themselves to our consideration” (1996, p. 220). In the spirit of this latter recommendation, the implications for cross-cultural leadership of the likely interaction of collectivism and high power distance as dimensions of national cultures deserve consideration. Leadership dynamics and the manifest culture Let us return to the South-east Asian setting of our earlier example. Although Malaysian society is a multi-cultural mix of Malay, Chinese, Indian, and other subcultures, there is general agreement that Malaysian workers share certain common but distinctive workplace values (Abdullah, 1992a, 1996). Hofstede (1991) describes Malaysian culture as relatively high in collectivism and very high in John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 power distance. Abdullah (1992a, 1992b, 1996) supports this view, noting that Malaysian workers are group oriented, respect elders and hierarchy, emphasize loyalty and consensus, and are concerned with harmony in relationships. Assuming that such characteristics were discussed in the expatriate manager’s predeparture cultural orientation programme, they would logically become part of the expected Malaysian culture – one in which workers behaved in group-oriented collectivist fashion on the one hand and in a respectful high power distance fashion on the other. As that manager prepared for the first meeting, therefore, it is understandable that her actions would be planned in anticipation that the Malaysians would respect her position and actively work together as a group to develop the desired action priorities, performance targets, and time lines. Vignette 2: When the manager presented her ideas, home-office viewpoints, and specific requests in the staff meeting, the Malaysian workers did not actively participate in group discussion as she had expected. Instead, she faced a visibly attentive but largely silent group. When eventually one staff member, whom the others referred to as tuan haji, congratulated her on the ideas, the others smiled and nodded in quiet agreement. Not much more was said, despite the manager’s active attempts to solicit input. The meeting soon ended. With obvious relief and pleasure, the Malaysians smiled and Figure 1 When individualist-moderate power distance leader meets collectivist-high power distance followers The expected culture Individualist, moderate power distance leader Expects Also expects Collectivist followers To be High power distance followers To be Team oriented Interactive Respectful Responsive The manifest culture Individualist and moderate power distance leader Finds Collectivist and high power distance followers are With tendencies toward Conforming Reserved Ingroup agreement Groupthink talked avidly while hosting a post-meeting “tea party” for their new manager. The manifest culture Although the manager in this case may take modest pleasure at the apparent agreement expressed in the meeting, she should be cautious. In fact, the more willing she is to reflect seriously on what transpired, the less satisfied she should become. Questions should be asked… and answered: Why didn’t anyone say very much? Does this mean my ideas have been accepted? Is everyone ready now to implement the plans and meet the targets and time lines? What really went on at this meeting? The American expatriate manager was prepared to find collectivism in the behaviour of the Malaysian work team and also to find its members acting with respect for authority in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Consistent with her “linear” understanding of the expected culture, she anticipated that the meeting would unfold along the lines depicted in the top part of Figure 1. What she experienced – described in the bottom of the figure – was something different. The manifest culture – the one actually enacted in a situation – reflected the influences of collectivism plus power distance in Malaysian culture. The work group responded with public deference, conformity, and politeness. No disagreement was publically expressed. What this meant in terms of true commitment and full contribution of ideas and viewpoints was, however, much less clear. In this situation, and more generally elsewhere, the expected culture and manifest cultures may share some common features. But to any extent that the overlap between the two is incomplete, leadership problems may be anticipated. Moreover, the overlap is likely to be less when the expected culture exists as a neat and “list-based” model that fails to encompass adequately the interconnections among multiple cultural aspects. The expected Malaysian culture of the expatriate manager, for example, probably exists as a set of “free- standing” stereotypes representing linear images. These images act much as heuristics in decision making (see Bazerman, 1994) to predispose her towards behaviours that are erroneous (owing to inadequate or incomplete accommodation of the local culture) at the same time that they may seem quite comfortable (owing to acting consistently with one’s cultural expectations). When the perceived comfort causes insufficient attention to actual outcomes resulting from leadership behaviour, opportunities for experience-based cultural learning are reduced. Rather than relating dynamically to [ 189 ] John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 the realities of the alternative culture – and actively learning from experience – the manager passively accepts perceptual constraints set by the expected culture (Snyder, 1981). Instead of the leader’s interactions becoming increasingly successful and functional thanks to cultural learning, they may become increasingly problematical and dysfunctional. Complications of language and communication Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) In both the case vignette and the general situation it represents, the additional complications of language and communication must also be recognized. It is common to view culture as a shared meaning system (Schweder and Levine, 1984) or collective mental programming (Hofstede, 1980). Members of a culture will share certain mindsets that cause them to interpret situations and events in generally similar ways, while persons from other cultures and mindsets are likely to interpret them differently (Erez and Early, 1993). Culture in this sense is a powerful force that shapes and influences the cognitions of people. In the terms of cultural self-representation theory, it forms a shared knowledge structure capable of reducing the variability of individual responses (Erez and Early, 1993). In this way culture contributes to a cognitive framework and behavioural repertoire that members of the culture will use to both interpret and respond to situations. As Adler (1991) notes, the subconscious influence of these internalized norms and expectations may be the source of cross-cultural misinterpretations. Language is an important mediator of culture (Adler et al., 1986). It helps to maintain the culture and serves as the vehicle for the creation of shared knowledge structures. But the terms and symbols of a language are not neutral; they are value-laden and culturally tied (Hofstede, 1980). When such terms and symbols are used across cultures, perceptions and communications may be confounded as misinterpretations occur (Smith and Bond, 1994, Ch. 9). This is why cross-cultural research methodologists recommend back translation of all research instruments used across linguistic boundaries (Brislin et al., 1973). Referring again to the case in point, expectations regarding Malaysian culture have been programmed into the expatriate manager’s mind based on the English-language terms “collectivism” and “power distance”. These English words carry cultural connotations and, in a sense, can compromise her leadership effectiveness because of their innate influences on perceptions and [ 190 ] behaviours. An individualist’s view of collectivism – that is, the individualist’s stereotypes of collectivist cultures – for example, will be structured within the confines of meanings found in the individualistic culture. This may not, and probably will not, capture the full reality of the ultimate “collectivism” as enacted in its home culture. The significance of English in particular as a medium of culture and a foundation for meaning takes on even more generalizable importance because cultures typically described as highly individualistic are also English speaking – notably those of the USA, Canada, and the UK (Erez and Early, 1993). Individualism and the English language, to some extent at least, appear to go hand-inhand. With this pairing may also travel inevitable tendencies towards cross-cultural misunderstanding. The interconnections among language, communication, and culture are subject to other confounding influences in settings like Malaysia where English is commonly spoken as a second language. Schermerhorn (1990) warns about the dangers of using English as a cross-cultural research medium with bilingual subjects. Even though it is easy to do so and subjects may appear to understand everything, he shows that the influences of culture may still confound research results. Linguistic differences between native and non-native speakers of any language, including English, may complicate cross-cultural communication in work and social situations. In the case of the American expatriate manager, she may not (especially at first) “speak” English in a way that is accurately “heard” by Malaysians; accent, linguistic nuance, and colloquialisms may interfere with communication effectiveness. She, in turn, may not (especially at first) accurately “hear” the spoken English used by the Malaysians in conversing with her. The expatriate manager uses her English, with its unique cultural underpinnings – individualist with low-moderate power distance; the Malaysians use their English, influenced by a very different culture – collectivist with high power distance. Because both parties are ostensibly speaking the “same” language, each assumes the other understands what they are saying. Quite possibly, neither of them will try adequately to interpret systematically the cultural contexts and meaning systems within which their respective English words and phrases are embedded (Smith and Bond, 1994, Ch. 9). John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 Directions in cross-cultural leadership understanding The American expatriate manager in our example has crossed cultural borders with a leadership tendency anchored in an individualist with low-moderate power distance American culture (Hofstede, 1980). She also crossed borders with leadership predispositions influenced by meaning systems developed and articulated within the linguistic confines of the English language. What she expected to find in the Malaysian culture, importantly, turned out to be somewhat different from what actually materialized. An important question in this and all similar cases becomes: how long will it take the leader to recognize these differences between expectations and reality, reorient her perceptions, and pursue action strategies that are best suited to the situation at hand? Vertical collectivism Even though well intentioned in preparing for her new assignment, the expatriate’s linear model of the expected culture proved inadequate as a leadership foundation. The individualist expatriate expected group work in a collectivist culture to involve active interaction and discussion of issues as everyone worked towards agreement on a final set of outcomes. In collectivist plus high power distance Malaysia, however, actual group process is more likely to proceed with subdued interaction, a concern for expressed harmony, and search for public consensus aligned with the apparent wishes of an authority figure. Singelis et al. (1995) refer to this combination of collectivism and high power distance as vertical collectivism. They describe it as a culture within which one perceives the self as part of a group while being accepting of power/status inequalities within the group. Although Abdullah (1992a, 1992b, 1996), a cultural insider, points out that tendencies towards conformity, public consensus, and deference to authority are to be expected in the Malaysian culture, the full operational implications of these tendencies may not be fully anticipated. An interview with Asma Abdullah concerning her intercultural training experiences in Malaysia is reported by Schermerhorn (1994). Given that members of collectivist cultures tend to display loyalty to their in-groups, respect authority and age, and conform to the wishes of a paternalistic leader, the resulting group dynamics – as suggested in the bottom part of Figure 1 – may take certain directions (see also Abdullah, 1996). These include reaching premature agreement (Harvey, 1974), suffering from groupthink (Janis, 1982), and perhaps escalating commitments to previously chosen courses of action (Staw, 1981). The extent to which such dynamics operate in collectivist-high power distance (vertical collectivism) groups, how they affect relationships with more individualistic and lowmoderate power distance groups, and their leadership implications in various work settings, are among the research directions that can be pursued to the ultimate benefit of those who practise cross-cultural leadership (see Singelis et al., 1995; Smith and Noakes, 1995; Smith et al., 1995). Leader-follower interactions In order to understand cross-cultural leadership situations better, the nature and consequences of emergent leader-follower “interactions” must be fully addressed. This includes being willing to examine more completely the action tendencies of individualistic/lowmoderate power distance leaders interacting with collectivist/high power distance followers. Like a drama that unfolds scene by scene, such cultures will meet – or “clash” – in a series of leader-follower episodes with specific and successive iterations of action and reaction. In this dynamic and ever-emerging setting, the results of one episode spill over to affect subsequent ones (Smith and Bond, 1994, Ch. 9). These episodic “dramas” in crosscultural leader-follower interactions must be better understood; they deserve significant attention from researchers and trainers alike (Brislin et al., 1986). Questions need to be asked and answered regarding how the episodes develop, how they relate to possible cognitive modifications in pre-existing cultural mindscapes, and what eventually happens in respect to leader-follower relationships and outcomes. The notions of cultural representation theory (Erez and Early, 1993) and psychological culture (Hofstede et al., 1993) may both apply here. Sensitivity to how language and subconscious meanings influence what members of one culture (e.g. individualist) expect to find, and how they eventually behave, when they deal with members of another culture (e.g. collectivist) will certainly be necessary. Cross-cultural learning The ideal situation for leadership in the cross-cultural workplace is for everyone involved – leader and followers alike – to be well prepared for what they find, and to learn quickly from experience. In practice, the complex nature of culture makes this exceedingly difficult to accomplish. What can and must be done, though, is for educators and trainers to prepare leaders for cross-cultural [ 191 ] John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 work in a realistic way. They must be taught to recognize and understand the limitations of “expected culture”, and to respect the need to become agile and avid learners of the “manifest culture”. Importantly, they must be made ready to examine carefully, and to learn from, cross-cultural leadership situations at the same time as they are participating in them. Here again, the special case where representatives of individualist/low-moderate power distance and collectivist/high power distance cultures meet in leadership situations adds special challenges. When working with collectivist and high power distance followers, individualist and moderate power distance leaders must understand that feedback on their effectiveness will be more muted and indirect than they have been culturally conditioned to expect (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). They must also be aware of how their own culture and language can influence their expectations of other cultures. They must further understand that this background can predispose them to act in potentially dysfunctional ways. While leadership training and development initiatives can never be perfect in “teaching” about alternative cultures, models that describe cultures in linear terms can and should be carefully screened. Ideally, they should be reconstructed as “constellations” with intricacies made meaningful to specific situations. They should also be accompanied by well-identified personal cultural anchor points that help to clarify action predispositions. All of these are necessary to prepare the cross-cultural leader adequately for active cultural learning (Bond, 1992). Conclusion The real world of cultures is one of networks and dynamic forces where all aspects interrelate and interact. At the very least, and especially given the importance to the global economy of the cultures found in many Asian nations, it is important that leadership research and development programmes address the implications of the collectivism and power distance interaction. Since the cultures of the world are more complicated than these two dimensions alone suggest (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994; Trompenaars, 1994), the various points made in this paper need to be explored and extended into other cultural dimensions. In all cases, leadership trainers and developers must replace simplified “lists” with multi-dimensional “collages” that display cultures in a more representative [ 192 ] manner. Although this paper offers just one rudimentary case, as an illustrative starting point, it will, it is hoped, contribute to future inquiries into the challenges of cross-cultural leadership effectiveness in our increasingly complex global economy. Vignette 3: Some time after the first staff meeting, the American expatriate attended a dinner party with other expatriates. She mentioned her experience to someone who had been “in-country” for quite some time. He said that what happened was quite natural; it was “to be expected”. He also advised her to meet separately with pak eik to discuss her work plans and ideas; and he encouraged her to ask for his views and those of the other team members. He predicted that tuan haji would informally discuss everything with the others, check back with her as necessary, and bring the group to agreement before the next formal meeting. Any recommendations she would put forth at the meeting would most likely meet her needs as well as theirs. Note 1 Although our specific interest here is with the individualism-collectivism and power distance interaction, we recognize that the complete Hofstede framework includes the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and short term-long term orientation (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Interactions among all dimensions are important to consider, as are interactions among dimensions found in other cultural frameworks, such as those suggested by Schwartz (1994) and Trompenaars (1994). References Abdullah, A. (Ed.) (1992a), Understanding the Malaysian Workforce: Guidelines for Managers, Malaysian Institute of Management, Kuala Lumpur. Abdullah, A. (1992b), “The influence of ethnic values on managerial practices in Malaysia”, Malaysian Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 3-18. Abdullah, A. (1996), Going Glocal: Cultural Dimensions in Malaysian Management, Malaysian Institute of Management, Kuala Lumpur. Adler, N.J. (1991), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., PWS Kent, Boston, MA. Adler, N.J., Doktor, R. and Redding, S.G. (1986), “From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: cross-cultural management reviewed”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 295-318. Bazerman, M.H. (1994), Judgement in Managerial Decision Making, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Blau, P. and Scott, W.R. (1962), Formal Organizations, Chandler, San Francisco, CA. Bond, M.H. (1992), “The process of enhancing cross-cultural competence in Hong Kong John R. Schermerhorn Jr and Michael Harris Bond Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) Leadership & Organization Development Journal 18/4 [1997] 187–193 organizations”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 16, pp. 395-412. Bond, M.H. (1996), “Chinese values”, in Bond, M.H. (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong. Brislin, R.W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C. and Yong, M. (1986), Inter-Cultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Brislin, R.W., Lonner, W. and Thorndike, R.M. (1973), Cross-cultural Research Methods, Wiley Interscience, New York, NY. Chinese Culture Connection (1987), “Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 143-64. Erez, M. and Early, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-identity, and Work, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Etzioni, A. (1963), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press, New York, NY. Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), Culture and Interpersonal Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Harvey, J. (1974), “Managing agreement in organizations: the Abilene paradox”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 63-80. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, abridged ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1985), “The interaction between national and organizational value systems”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 347-57. Hofstede, G. (1991), “Management in a multicultural society”, Malaysian Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 3-12. Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 4-21. Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H. and Luk, C. (1993), “Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: a methodological treatise on levels of analysis”, Organization Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 483- 503. Janis, I. (1982), Groupthink, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Kirkbride, P.S. and Tang, S.F.Y. (1992), “Management development in the Nanyang Chinese societies of South-east Asia”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 11, pp. 54-66. Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rohwer, J. (1995), Asia Rising: Why America Will Prosper as Asia’s Economies Boom, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr (1990), “An empirical reminder about language effects in crosscultural business and management research: the case of bilingual subjects”, Hong Journal of Business and Management, Vol. III, pp. 57-66. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr (1994), “Intercultural management training: an interview with Asma Abdullah”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13, pp. 47-64. Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Cultural dimensions of values: toward an understanding of national differences”, in Kam, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Schweder, R.A. and LeVine, R.A. (1984), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.S. and Gelfand, M. (1995), “Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 29, pp. 240-75. Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1994), Social Psychology Across Cultures, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. Smith, P.B. and Noakes, J. (1995), “Cultural differences in group processes”, in West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, Chichester. Smith P. B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996), “National culture and the values of organizational employees: a multi-dimensional analysis across 43 nations”, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, Vol. 27 pp. 231-64. Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F., Leung, K. and Dugan, S. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism and the handling of disagreement: a 23 country study”, working paper, University of Sussex. Snyder, M. (1981), “Seek and ye shall find: testing hypotheses about other people”, in Higgins, E.T., Herman, C.P. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Staw, B.M. (1981), “The escalation of commitment to a course of action”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 577-87. Triandis, H.C. (1988), “Collectivism vs. individualism: a reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology”, in Verma, G.K. and Bagley, C. (Eds), Cross- cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition, Macmillan, London, pp. 60-95. Triandis, H.C., Brislin, R. and Hui, C.H. (1988), “Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 12, pp. 269-89. Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, Irwin Professional Publishing, New York, NY. Yeh, R. (1989), “On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values”, Asian Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 6, pp. 149-60. [ 193 ] Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) This article has been cited by: 1. Kin-Kit Li, Michael Wing Ho Chan, Shui Shan Lee, Kin On Kwok. 2019. The mediating roles of social benefits and social influence on the relationships between collectivism, power distance, and influenza vaccination among Hong Kong nurses: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies . [Crossref] 2. Hyuntak Roh, Kyungmi Chun, Yeejeong Ryou, Jooyeon Son. 2019. Opening the Black Box: A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Effects of Top Management Team Diversity on Emergent Team Processes and Multilevel Contextual Influence. Group & Organization Management 44:1, 112-164. [Crossref] 3. Mo Wang, Dora Ho. 2018. Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education 39, 1-15. [Crossref] 4. ChenNancy, Nancy Chen, ChaoMike Chen-ho, Mike Chen-ho Chao, XieHenry, Henry Xie, TjosvoldDean, Dean Tjosvold. 2018. Transforming cross-cultural conflict into collaboration. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 25:1, 70-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. Eugene Y.J. Tee, TamilSelvan Ramis, Elaine F. Fernandez, Neil Paulsen. Responding to Injustice: Perception, Anger, and Identification as Drivers of Collective Action 17-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 6. Nicole Amanda Celestine, Chris Perryer. 2016. The Impact of National Cultural Values on Intrinsic Motivation to Transfer Tacit Knowledge. International Journal of Knowledge Management 12:4, 1-19. [Crossref] 7. . References 523-560. [Crossref] 8. William H. Murphy, Ning Li. 2015. Government, company, and dyadic factors affecting key account management performance in China: Propositions to provoke research. Industrial Marketing Management 51, 115-121. [Crossref] 9. Brian A. Altman. 2013. A review of international cross-cultural mixed messages and their implications for human resource development. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 25:2, 83-94. [Crossref] 10. Pei‐Lee Teh, Hongyi Sun. 2012. Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:1, 64-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 11. Andrea Ollo-López, Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Martín Larraza-Kintana. 2011. The impact of country-level factors on the use of new work practices. Journal of World Business 46:3, 394-403. [Crossref] 12. Zulhamri Abdullah. 2011. Strategic Leadership in Corporate Communication: The Importance of Executive Coaching. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref] 13. Christopher J. Rees, Hasanah Johari. 2010. Senior managers' perceptions of the HRM function during times of strategic organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 23:5, 517-536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 14. Regina Eckert, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, William A. Gentry, Jeremy F. Dawson. 2010. “I don't see me like you see me, but is that a problem?” Cultural influences on rating discrepancy in 360-degree feedback instruments. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19:3, 259-278. [Crossref] 15. Mohd Awang Idris, Maureen F. Dollard, Anthony H. Winefield. 2010. Lay theory explanations of occupational stress: the Malaysian context. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 17:2, 135-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 16. Pei-Lee Teh, Chen-Chen Yong, Veeri Chettiar Arumugam, Keng-Boon Ooi. 2009. Role Conflict in Information Systems Personnel: A TQM Perspective. Journal of Applied Sciences 9:15, 2701-2713. [Crossref] 17. Pei‐Lee Teh, Chen‐Chen Yong, Veeri Arumugam, Keng‐Boon Ooi. 2009. Does total quality management reduce employees' role conflict?. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109:8, 1118-1136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 18. Sudeep Sharma, Jürgen Deller, Ramakrishna Biswal, Manas K. Mandal. 2009. Emotional Intelligence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9:2, 217-236. [Crossref] 19. Naresh Khatri. 2009. Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organisations. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 13:1, 1-9. [Crossref] 20. Anita M. M. Liu, Richard Fellows. 2008. Behaviour of quantity surveyors as organizational citizens. Construction Management and Economics 26:12, 1271-1282. [Crossref] 21. Lize Booysen. Managing Cultural Diversity: A South African Perspective 51-92. [Crossref] 22. Charles M. Vance. 2006. Strategic Upstream and Downstream Considerations for Effective Global Performance Management. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6:1, 37-56. [Crossref] 23. Eduardo Salas, C.Shawn Burke, Jennifer E Fowlkes, Katherine A Wilson. 12. CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP EFFICACY IN MULTI-CULTURAL TEAMS 341-384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 24. Barrie O. Pettman, Richard Dobbins. 2002. Leadership: a selected bibliography. Equal Opportunities International 21:4/5/6, 1-192. [Abstract] [PDF] Downloaded by RRU Library. Need help? Ask us now! At 20:54 30 May 2019 (PT) 25. Long Lim. 2001. Work-Related Values of Malays and Chinese Malaysians. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 1:2, 209-226. [Crossref] 26. Nicole A. Celestine, Chris Perryer. The Determinants of Interorganizational Knowledge Coaching Success 146-169. [Crossref]