Title: Leadership differences: Comparison between American and Japanese
expatriate managers
Author: Pisal Yooyanyong and Nuttawuth Muenjohn*
Abstract
Investigating the Western and Eastern styles of leadership was a primary interest of
the current study. More specifically, it aimed to: a) examine the leadership behaviours of
American and Japanese expatriate managers who were working in Thailand; and b) compare
their leadership behaviours to find the similarities and differences.
Twenty-three American and twenty-five Japanese expatriate managers evaluated their
leadership behaviors based upon ten leadership factors. T-test results revealed that there were
significant differences on four leadership (Decision Making, Visionary Ability, Training
Succession and Supervising) and non-significant differences on six leadership factors
(Communication Skills, Achievement Orientation, Performance Feedback, Motivation,
Leadership Styles and Followers’ Performance) displayed by American and Japanese
expatriates. Implications for expatriate managers on leadership behaviors also discussed.
Keywords: Leadership, expatriate management, cultural values
*
Mr. Pisal Yooyanyong
Dr. Nuttawuth Muenjohn
Faculty of Business
Asian University of Science and Technology
jaded_nd@hotmail.com
muenjohn@asianust.ac.th
Introduction
Increasingly, people interact, negotiate and compromise with people from other
cultures. The potential for management frustration, costly misunderstandings and even
business failures increases significantly when dealing with people whose value, beliefs,
customs are different from each other (Bass: 1990). However, when understood and
successfully managed, differences in culture can lead to innovative business practices and
sustainable sources of competitive advantage.
Success in an increasingly competitive global market depends on the knowledge and
sensitivity of managers to cultural differences in leadership behaviour (Bass: 1990). As we
are living in the decade of globalization where all business activities tend to shift toward a
more integrated and interdependent world economy, examination of leadership styles based
on culture is needs for organizations to cope with the complex managerial issues. One of the
important elements of international business is leadership skills. Leaders in this decade have
to be more consciousness about making decisions as they better to think horizontally and
make decisions that work both in domestic and international basis.
As people are living in the fast moving economic world where business persons have
to be more open to the outside market and extravert because of the economic and business
environment, expatriate managers should have a background of others to take advantage of
cross-leading management. The globalization concept will play a big role for the world of
business in the coming year and the economy of each country will be more dependent on
each others.
Therefore, this study would like to further research on leadership and culture.
Although, there have been some studies investigated in this area, there is no particular
research comparison between American and Japanese leaders in Thailand. More specifically,
this study aimed to: a) examine leadership behaviour of American and Japanese expatriate
2
managers who are working in Thailand; and b) compare the similarities and differences on
leadership behaviour between the expatriates.
Literature Review
Leadership and Culture
There is no universal definition of leadership because leadership is complex and
because leadership is studied in different ways that require different definitions (Achua and
Lussier: 2000). Leadership has been defined in many terms such as traits, behaviour,
influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, and occupation of an administrative
position (Yukl: 1998). Most definitions of leadership reflect a process whereby intentional
influence is exerted by leader over subordinates to guide structure and facilitate activities and
relationships in a group or organization. Each definition differs in many respects and it
reflects disagreement about identification of leaders and leadership processes. Researchers
use different phenomena to investigate and interpret the results in different ways (Yukl:
1998).
There have been several studies investigating the relationship between cultures and
leaderships. Also, there have been confirmations that leadership styles differ by cultures (Bae
et al., 1993; Han et al., 1996). Recent literature in the behavioural sciences appears to suggest
that culture may play important and different roles in our understanding of body of
knowledge. For example, the place of study (Korea vs the USA) for an MBA degree appears
to impact on the decision-maker’s managerial style (Bae et al: 1993). The literature also
appears to imply that students’ perceptions toward various management issues significantly
differ depending on their religious background (Safranski and Kwon: 1990).
In recent study, Han et al. (1996) argued that culture plays a significant role in
establishing a relationship between leadership and power. For example, American
respondents are likely to rate their instructors more favourably in term of structure and
3
consideration than Korean. Americans respondents rated their instructors’ expert knowledge
much higher than the Korea respondents because, social expectations, instructors in USA are
expected to be expertise in certain fields while Korean expects their instructors to know
everything.
Similar finding were also reported by Favilla et al. (1996). Some scholars argue that
“an objectively effective leadership style may be effective precisely because it is perceived
by followers as being appropriate for the situation at hand (Campbell et al. 1993). In other
words, leaders should behave in accordance with a given situation.
In addition, culture also determines leadership styles. For example, rational
persuasion in which meaning and factual reasoning are provided to requests, and explanations
of what is to be done and why are furnished; and consultation in which the followers are
involved in the process of planning or making a decision are likely to result in target
commitment in US culture (Yukl and Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al.: 1996).
In light of above finding, there were numbers of studies indicating that leadership
styles work well in one context may not be effective in different cultural context. Schmidt
and Yeh (1992) indicated a prevalence of common leaders influence strategies across
Australian, UK, Japanese and Taiwan managers. The Australians were found to be most
similar to the USA regarding their emphasis on reasoning and bargaining with subordinates.
Due to cultural differences, expatriates transferring to another culture may experience
“culture shock”. This shock may cause feeling of helplessness, confusion and frustration. It
may also include role shock because each role in society involves a certain set of expectations
that often differ across cultures (Frederick & Rodrigues 1994; Harris & Moran 1987). This
kind of shock tends to happen with expatriate managers when they have to conduct and
mange business aboard. If expatriates are aware of such variation beforehand and prepared to
adjust their behavior in relation to different expectations, they could partly avoid
4
misunderstanding and work more effectively from the beginning of the assignment (Black &
Porter 1990; Stewart et al. 1994).
Japanese and American Leadership
Japan is the second largest trading partner with the United States. Japan is high in
masculinity and uncertainty avoidance and medium on collectivism. Japan’s leaders require
respect and obedience from their subordinates. Leaders have historically responded with
paternalistic attitudes toward their subordinates. Japanese organizations are described as
highly hierarchical and are rigidly organized.
Japanese managers are expected to care for personal live of their subordinates (Ouchi
and Wilkins: 1988). The phrase “I trust you, you can do it” reflects that Japanese managers
typically outline general objectives, make unclear group assignments and let subordinates
carry out objectives by their own approaches. When come to the decision making, Japanese is
tendency for collective decision making and extensive consultation.
Bass (1990) maintained that Japanese managers emphasize on equality of all group
members and support group harmony. Compliments and criticism are usually directed at the
group. Charisma is important for senior managers who establish an overall theme, develop
strategy and engage in high-level external relations. Japanese managers also don’t like to take
risk (Bass: 1990). For the Japan, the ideal leader should be flexible, fair, a good listener,
outgoing and responsible.
For American leadership style, leader contingent reward and punishment are expected
to have positive impact in the U.S. Bass (1990) stated that charismatic leadership is important
at all levels in U.S. organizations. Then, charismatic leadership is expected to have high
impact in the U.S. For the Americans, the ideal leader should be intelligent, honest,
understanding, a good verbal skills and determinant.
5
American managers are medium on paternalism. Supportive leadership shows strong
positive relationships with followers’ satisfaction and organizational commitment. As the
country is high on individualism, supportive and participative leadership therefore have a
high degree of impact but directive leadership has no significant impact on follower. Rewards
and punishments are based on individual performance. Therefore, leader contingent reward
and punishment are expected to have positive impact in the U.S.
The suggestion systems in U.S. look for home runs advice but little improvement
suggestions are appreciated. Japanese managers focus on improving the work-process
whereas American managers focus on the results. Japanese prefers to criticize among
themselves and admit mistakes while American avoids direct criticizing (Pasa, 2000).
Japanese managers place more important on relationship as they believe that bigger deals will
result if more time and attention are paid to people.
The Japanese businessman usually wants to build personal relationship first while the
Westerner usually wants to make a deal first. Japanese managers want a long-term
relationship. In contrast, American managers drive for the results because they believe that
budgets met or projects completed are more important when it comes to goals and evaluations.
American managers place a little attention to a harmony of a group while Japanese managers
give extra importance to WA or harmony, because they believe that it will facilitate the work
and encourage people to more contribution. Japanese managers are interested in learning
more about an individual employee’s life because it gives the supervisor a better chance of
understanding the needs and capabilities of an employee. For Japanese managing the whole
person rather than a person is the best way to get that person engages in his or her job.
Methodology
6
Two nations, Japan and The United States, were chosen because: a) both countries
have clear cultural difference according to Hofstede’s 4 dimension model; b) these two
countries play major roles in the world’s economy; c) there are many American & Japanese
firms in Thailand; d) people from these two countries are viewed as effective business leaders;
e) Japan is viewed as the representative from the East and the United States is a West’s
representative; and f) there is no study in this topic in Thailand.
Two groups of population were selected from cross section sample (random stratified)
of managers in a foreign-based company in Thailand. These companies were chosen because
of the approval to collect data from managers of the organization and high level of
cooperation was assured. The research population covers 132 foreign-based companies in
Thailand; 74 of them were American firms and 58 were Japanese firms. The sample size was
50 companies; 25 of each group. Both of them were members of American and Japanese
Chamber of Commerce in Thailand.
74 English questionnaires were sent to 74 American firms. As for Japanese firms,
English and Thai versions of questionnaire were sent to Japanese translator for Japanese
translation before distributing to 58 Japanese firms. After, Japanese questionnaires were sent
back, they were sent to Japanese translator again to translate back to Thai language then
translated into English language by a researcher.
Results
Participants
The numbers of American respondents were 23. Majority of the American expatriates
aged 45 or older (60.9%) and well-educated (Master degree: 52.2%). Most of them worked
and stayed in Thailand more than 4 years (43.5%). For Japanese expatriate, there were 25
expatriate completed the questionnaire. Most of them were older than 45 years (84%) and had
7
a university experience (Bachelor degree: 76%). Similar to the American expatriates, 44% of
the Japanese respondents worked and lived in Thailand.
Ratings on ten leadership factors
Mean value of ten leadership factors of both groups was translated into readable term
to see the rate of performance or opinion of both groups on each leadership factors. Table 1
showed on the first factor that both American managers and Japanese managers had the
highest mean value was achievement orientation (4.4638 and 4.2933). Visionary ability
(4.4203) came at second for American while Japanese was motivation (4.2000). The third
factor for American was training succession (4.4130) whereas visionary ability was for
Japanese.
Table 1 Ranking Leadership Factors of American and Japanese Managers
Rank
American
Japanese
Leadership Factors
Mean Value
Leadership Factors
Mean Value
1
Achievement orientation
4.4638
Achievement orientation
4.2933
2
Visionary ability
4.4203
Motivation
4.2000
3
Training succession
4.4130
Visionary ability
4.1333
4
Motivation
4.3043
Performance feedback
4.1200
5
Supervising
4.3043
Training succession
4.0800
6
Performance feedback
4.2174
Followers' performance
3.9200
7
Followers' performance
4.2174
Communication skills
3.8800
8
Decision making
4.1957
Supervising
3.8800
9
Leadership behavior
4.1304
Leadership behavior
3.8400
10
Communication skills
4.0435
Decision making
3.7800
Motivation was fourth factor of American with the mean 4.3043 while performance
feedback was the fourth rank of Japanese with the mean 4.1200. The fifth of American was
supervising (4.3043) and training succession (4.0800) of Japanese. Performance feedback
8
(4.2174) was the sixth rank of American while Followers’ performance (3.9200) was the
sixth rank of Japanese. The seventh of American was followers’ performance (4.2174) while
Japanese was communication skills (3.8800). Decision making (4.1957) came at the eighth
for American while Japanese was supervising (3.8800). The ninth rank of American and
Japanese were leadership behavior (4.1304), (3.8400). Communication skills (4.0435) came
at the last factor for American while Japanese was decision making (3.7800).
Comparison between American and Japanese leadership factors
The T-test function was employed to compute similarities and differences between
two groups. The T-test value of each leadership factors were organized in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparison the Results of American and Japanese on Leadership Factors
Leadership Factors
Mean
T-Value
Significant
Perspective
(2-tailed)
US
JP
Communication Skills
4.04
3.88
.816
.418
Achievement Orientation
4.46
4.29
1.293
.202
Decision Making
4.19
3.78
2.538
.015
Visionary Ability
4.42
4.13
2.058
.045
Training Succession
4.41
4.08
2.155
.036
Performance Feedback
4.22
4.12
.673
.505
Motivation
4.30
4.20
.536
.594
Supervising
4.30
3.88
2.415
.020
Leadership Behavior
4.13
3.84
1.245
.219
Followers’ performance
4.22
3.92
1.497
.141
Non Significant
Differences
Non Significant
Differences
Significant
Differences
Significant
Differences
Significant
Differences
Non Significant
Differences
Non Significant
Differences
Significant
Differences
Non Significant
Differences
Non Significant
Differences
According to the table 2, there were four leadership factors that American and
Japanese managers were significantly different from each other. More specifically, the
significant differences between American and Japanese expatriates on their leadership
behaviors can be found on the decision making factor (p = .015), the visionary ability factor
9
(p = .045), the training succession factor (p = .036) and the supervising factor (p = .020),
which was lower than the 0.05 which represented significant differences between two groups.
The rest factors showed none significant differences between two groups of managers
including communication skills (p = .418), achievement orientation (p = .202), performance
feedback (p = .505), motivation (p = .594), leadership behavior (p = .219) and followers’
performance (p = .141).
Discussion
American expatriate managers
Several aspects of leadership behaviour of American managers were disclosed.
According to the research results, American managers overall had good communication skills.
They communicated well with their Thai subordinates and understand what Thais
communicated to them. They were very high achievement oriented and concerned for the task
objectives, set challenging goal and assumed responsibilities for solving task-related
problems.
Also, American managers were quite decisive decision makers, often clarified reasons
and trained involved and empowered followers to make efficient decisions. American
managers were highly clear in idealized vision and future oriented and also highly concerned
for their subordinates by training their followers for today jobs and preparing them for future
jobs. In addition, they also trained them to work more effectively and efficiently and
intensively provided feedback for their followers and their feedback identified ways to
improve their followers’ performance.
American managers highly motivated their subordinates to work harder by stating
clearly what the desired performance is and is not. They often worked with their subordinates
to improve followers’ performance and provided training, developed skills, scheduled works
and set performance goal for their followers. Lastly, American managers viewed their
10
leadership behavior to be effective and suitable with Thai context. Their leadership behavior
was well accepted and respected by Thai followers therefore American followers’
performance overall was improved because of their supervision.
Japanese expatriate managers
According to the research results, Japanese managers overall had good
communication skills. They communicated well with their Thai subordinates and understand
what Thais communicated to them. Japanese managers were also very high achievement
oriented and concerned for the task objectives, set challenging goal and assumed
responsibilities for solving task-related problems. Also, Japanese managers were a bit above
average decision makers, usually clarified reasons and trained involved and empowered
followers to make efficient decisions. Japanese managers were clear in expressing idealized
vision and future oriented.
Furthermore, Japanese managers also concerned for their subordinates by training
their followers for today jobs and preparing them for future jobs. In addition, they also
trained them to work more effectively and efficiently and regularly provided feedback for
their followers. Their feedback identified ways to improve their followers’ performance.
Japanese managers often motivated their subordinates to work harder by stating clearly what
the desired performance is and is not. They worked with their subordinates to improve
followers’ performance and provided training, developed skills, scheduled works and set
performance goal for their followers. They viewed their leadership behavior effective and
suitable with Thai context and their leadership behavior was accepted and respected by Thai
followers therefore their followers’ performance overall was improved because of their
supervision.
11
Differences in leadership behaviour between American and Japanese
The significant differences on the leadership behaviour of American and Japanese
expatriates could be explained by investigating the items representing four leadership
behaviours.
On the decision making factor, the first item was “You often clarify reasons for your
decisions” in which American managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.52) while
Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.2). The second item was “You understand the desires of
followers and make decisions that benefit majority” in which American managers showed
Agree rate (X=3.78) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=3.72). The third item was “You
train, involve and empower followers to make efficient decisions” in which American
managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.39) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.04).
The last item was “You make business decisions without hesitation in an unstructured
situation” in which American managers showed Agree rate (X=4.09) while Japanese showed
Agee rate (X=3.76).
The sub-dimension items that made significant differences between two groups were
the first, the third and the fourth sub-dimension items. These differences may be part from the
different nationality, education and years in Thailand of two group managers. When come to
the decision making, Japanese is tendency for collective decision making and extensive
consultation (William Ouchi: 1970) and (Chen: 1995). This could be the reason why Japanese
were not skilled in making decisions in difficult situation that need quick and effective act.
While American personally was more decisive in making decision because of high
individualistic norm that enabled them to make quick and effective decision in hard times. In
addition, American was more familiar in uncertain situation as they had low rate on
uncertainty avoidance of Hofstede’s 4 dimension theory (Hofstede: 1984). This factor also
12
allowed them to have better skills in making difficult decisions particularly in vague
circumstance.
As for education, based on the research finding, majority of American managers hold
Master degree while majority of Japanese obtained Bachelor degree. American managers had
more knowledge and skills to transfer and train their subordinates. They also had more
analytical tools to analyze the situations and make more precise decisions therefore they
could have higher mean in this sub-dimension factor. In addition, American tends to know
deep in particular things while Japanese knew roughly of many things. This could make the
content of knowledge transferred had unequal impact to Thai subordinates. Some Thai
workers knew many things but could not get anything out of them while the others can take
full advantage in what they knew very well.
The years of expatriate managers stay in Thailand had effect to decision making
factor; the longer the expatriate managers stay in Thailand, the better the decision of them
because they experienced the Thai environment for sometime. In this case, majority of both
American managers and Japanese managers stayed in Thailand more than 4 years so they
have exposed to the Thai environment equally so they should perform similar in this factor
but because the nature of American managers that allowed them to perform better. American
managers were more decisive decision makers according to Hofstede (1984) because they
were good at unstructured situations.
For visionary ability, the first item was “You always look forward and are future
oriented.” in which American managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.43) while
Japanese showed Agee rate (X=3.92). The second item was “You understand corporate
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats before developing company’s visions” in
which American managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.48) while Japanese showed
Strongly Agee rate (X=4.28). The last item was “You can express an idealized vision of a
13
future that is significantly better than the present” in which American managers showed
Strongly Agree rate (X=4.35) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.20).
The items that made significant differences between two groups were the first and the
third sub-dimension items. These differences may be part from the different age range and
education of two group managers. American managers’ age range spread around 25 to more
than 45 years while Japanese managers’ age range spread around 36 to more than 45 years.
This could be the reason why American managers were more future-oriented than Japanese
managers since the environment today forced this generation to be more aggressive and
compete relentlessly.
As for education, based on the research finding, majority of American managers hold
Master degree while majority of Japanese obtained Bachelor degree. American managers had
more analytical tools, knowledge, skills to articulate and develop idealized vision therefore
they could have higher mean in this sub-dimension factor.
Considering training succession, the first item was “You train your followers for
today jobs and prepare them for future jobs” in which American managers showed Strongly
Agree rate (X=4.43) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.08). The second item was “You
train your followers to work more effective and efficient” in which American managers
showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.39) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.08).
Both sub-dimension items made significant differences between two groups. These
differences may be part of different level of education of two groups. The age of managers
affected the training factor too. People of the same generation tend to understand each other
well because the environment they experience is pretty much the same. Therefore, American
managers and their subordinates tend to better perform in this aspect.
Based on the research finding, majority of American managers hold Master degree
while majority of Japanese obtained Bachelor degree. American managers had more
14
knowledge, skills to train their workers to work more effective and efficient than Japanese
subordinates therefore they could have higher mean value in this factor.
The last different factor was supervising. the first item was “You improve the
performance of subordinates by working with them to identify their strengths and
weaknesses” in which American managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.30) while
Japanese showed Agee rate (X=3.79). The second item was “You provide training, develop
skills, schedule works and set performance goals for your followers” in which American
managers showed Strongly Agree rate (X=4.30) while Japanese showed Agee rate (X=4.12).
Both items made significant differences between two groups. These differences may
be part from the different age range, education, years in Thailand and power distance of two
group managers. American managers’ age range spread around 25 to more than 45 years
while Japanese managers’ age range spread around 36 to more than 45 years. People of
similar ages could work far better than people of different ages. They usually experienced the
similar environment that built them under the same business framework. Also, they could
learn things from each others faster since they spoke the same language.
As for years in Thailand, the longer the expatriate managers stay in Thailand, the
better collaboration of them with the Thai subordinates. In this case, majority of both
American managers and Japanese managers stayed in Thailand more than 4 years so they
have equal experience in working with Thai followers and should perform similar in this
factor but because American managers had more analytical tools and skills to supervise and
identify the strengths and weaknesses of their followers so they performed better in this
dimension.
According to Hofstede’s four dimension model (1984), American has low value in
power distance dimension where followers find it is more comfortable to work with their
managers or superiors because followers don’t need to follow everything their managers ask
15
or command if they have the proper reasons to support their actions. Therefore, American
managers and their subordinates could work more collaborative than Japanese managers and
their followers.
Recommendations and Conclusions
As it was illustrated, American and Japanese managers did very well in Achievement
Orientation dimension, therefore under the supervision of both groups of managers, followers
would be expected to work hard to achieve the challenging projects, always look for the
improvement and future oriented.
Also, American managers gave considerable attention to the decision making
dimension. They often trained, involved and empowered their subordinated in making
decisions. They are decisive decision makers in unstructured situation. Therefore, under
supervision of American managers, followers should prepare to take high responsibilities and
learn how to make decisions under the tension situation.
Japanese managers did fairly in the supervision dimension. They did but not often
improve the performance of their subordinates by working with them to identify their
strengths and weaknesses. They less provided training; developed skills, scheduled works and
set performance goals for their followers than American managers, therefore, under
supervision of Japanese managers, followers should not expect their managers would often
provide training rather followers should rely on themselves to develop skills improve work
quality.
As for visionary factor, American managers gave considerable attention to this
dimension. They set challenging but realistic goals and deadlines. They are willing to assume
responsibilities for solving task-related problems. Therefore, under supervision of American
managers, followers should prepare and learn how to achieve the challenging goals and be
able to take more task-related responsibilities.
16
References
Achua, C., and Lussier, R. (2000) Leadership: Theory, Application and Skill
Development, United States of America: South-Western College Publishing.
Bae, M., Kwon, I.W., Safranski, R., and Han, D.C. (1993) ‘Impact of education and other
contextual factors on management values: a study of managers in the Republic of Korea’,
Essays in Honor of Professor Hi-Young Hahn, Seoul National University Press, Seoul,
Korea, pp. 327-42.
Bass, B.M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Black, J.S., and Porter, L.W. (1990) ‘Managerial behaviours and job performance: a
successful manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 22, 99-113.
Blake, R., and Mouton, J. (1964) The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing. Blake,
R., and McCanse, A.A. (1991) Leadership Dilemmas-Grid Solutions, Houston: Gulf
Publishing.
Campbell, D.J., Bommer, W., and Yeo, E. (1993) ‘Perceptions of appropriate leadership
style: participation versus consultation across two cultures’, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Favilla, E., Kwon, I.W., and Han, D.C. (1996) ‘The attitudes of management
students to their university education: United States vs Korean students’, International
Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 446-55.
Frederick, W.R., and A.F. Rodrigues (1994) ‘A Spanish acquisition in Eastern Germany:
culture shock’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, 42-48.
Han, D.C., Kwon, I.W., Stoeberl, P.A., and Kim, J.H. (1996) ‘The relationship between
leadership and power among Korean and United States business students’, International
Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Haire, M., E. Ghiselli and L.W. Porter (1966) Managerial Thinking: An International
Study, New York: Wiley.
Harris, P.R., and R.T. Moran (1987) Managing Cultural Differences, Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Harvey, M., Speier, C. and Novicevic, M.M. (1999) ‘The role of expatriation in global
staffing’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10, No. 3,
459-476.
Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K.H. (1977) Management of Organizational Behaviour:
Utilizing Human Resources, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hill, Charles W.L. (2001) International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace,
Postscript 2001, Third edition, New York, Irwin McGraw-Hill.
17
Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture’s Consequence: International Differences in Work Related
Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1980) ‘Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories
apply aboard?’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2, Summer, pp. 98-122.
House, R., Wright, N.S., and Aditya, R.N. (1997) ‘Cross-cultural research on
organizational leadership. A critical analysis and a proposed theory’, in Early, P.C. and
Erez, M. (Eds), New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology,
San Francisco, CA: The Lexington Press.
Morrison, A.J. (2000) ‘Developing a global leadership model’, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 39, No. 2&3, 117-132.
Ouchi, W., (1970) Theory Z-How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ouchi, W.G., and Wilkins, A.L. (1988) ‘Organizational Culture’, in Westoby, A. (Ed.),
Culture and Power in Educational Organizations, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Pasa, S.F. (2000) ‘Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture’,
Leadership&Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 414-426.
Rodriguez, C.A. (1990) ‘The situation and national culture as contingencies for leadership
behaviour: Two conceptual models’, in Prasad, S.B. (Ed.), Advances in International
Comparative Management: A Research Annual, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Safranski, R., and Kwon, I.W. (1990) ‘Religion and management: an attempt to isolate
specific relationship’, Advance in International Comparative Management, Vol. 4, ed. by
S. Bejemin Prasas, JAI Press, Greenwich, CO, pp. 118-28.
Schmidt, S., and Yeh, R-S. (1992) ‘The structure of leader influence’, Journal of Crosscultural Psychology, Vol. 23, N0. 2, pp. 251-64.
Stewart, R., J. Barsoux, A. Kieser, H. Ganter., and P. Walgenbach (1994) Managing in
Britain and Germany, New York: St. Martin’s Press.Suutari, V. (1996) ‘Variation in the
leadership behaviour of western European managers: Finnish expatriates’, International
Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, 677-707.
Yukl, G., and Falbe, C.M. (1990) ‘Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward,
and lateral influence attempts’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 132-40.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., and Falbe, C.M. (1996) ‘Antecedents of influence outcomes’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 309-17.
Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organizations, Fourth edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
18