The paper "Culture and Dimensions of Culture, Universalism versus Particularism" is an outstanding example of management coursework. Research on leadership and how it affects various cross-cultural nations have escalated as most researchers attempt to find out the effects of culture on leadership and change. Many researchers have realized that research on leadership and leadership styles especially in relation to culture is indeed a challenging endeavor (Marcus et al. 2003, p. 731). Despite the consistent and outstanding research done by leadership researchers, there has never been a common definition of leadership that has been accepted by all.
Each person attempts to provide a definition according to his or her own understanding which is later criticized by other researchers. Adding the component of cross-cultural on the leadership issue makes it more complex as definition becomes more complicated (Chhokar et al 2013, p. 25). However, the article argues that it is necessary that research is done on how cross-cultural factors impact on leadership. Geert Hofstede in his book Cultural Consequences emphasizes that cross-culture is primarily the difference in the people’ s shared values where he defines values as ‘ ‘ broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others. ’ ’ Hofstede purports that in doing research related to cross-culture, there are three critical questions that the researcher should take into consideration consisting of what is under comparison, whether nations are indeed suitable units in indulging in cross-cultural comparison and whether the phenomena under study is functionally equivalent (Marcus et al.
2003, p. 732). Hartnell et al. (2013, p. 45) In studying cross-cultural characteristics of different organizations, Hofstede posits that it is crucial to assess the organizational behavior of each company from each country and determine whether such organizational behaviors are directly correlated to the national or regional culture. According to Graen et al (1997), cross-cultural research is primarily aimed at carrying out a comparison between different cultures maintaining that ethics and the emics are the foci.
de Luque et al. (2013, p. 54) explains that ethics are the things that are distinctive to a particular culture whence emics are the general and common features to almost all cultures. In explaining culture and leadership, determining cultural differences and similarities should remain the major focus of the explanation.
It is as well crucial determining the universality of a particular cultural phenomenon. The concern on universality attempts to answer the question as to whether cultural phenomena are universally applicable or are just reliant to a specific group of people (Marcus et al. 2003, p. 733). Lonner (1980) identifies the three major universal concerns on the cultural issue including the simple universal, variform universal and the functional universal (Bakir et al. 2015, p. 225). However, Dorfman et al. (1997) criticize the idea of universality by purporting that there is the minimal and partial substantiation of universality and that leadership is not based on any cultural setup or contingency.
The Multiple Linkages Model, however, shows that people from different regions possess different leadership styles. For instance, leaders from Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea and the USA have been proven to be more charismatic, supportive and provide contingent rewards to worthy persons. Each and every group of culture would endeavor to protect and preserving their respective cultures hence the issue around cross-cultural leadership keeps augmenting killing the hope for simple universality (Marcus et al.
2003, p. 733-734).
Bakir, A., Blodgett, J.G., Vitell, S.J. and Rose, G.M., 2015. A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 226-232). Springer International Publishing.
Bealer, D. and Bhanugopan, R., 2014. Transactional and transformational leadership behaviour of expatriate and national managers in the UAE: a cross-cultural comparative analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), pp.293-316.
Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C. and House, R.J. eds., 2013. Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Routledge.
House, R.C., de Luque, M.F.S., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M. and Hanges, P.J., 2013. Strategic leadership across cultures: The new GLOBE multinational study of executive leadership and culture. Auflage, Thousand Oaks/CA.
Johnston, H., 2016. Dimensions of Culture in Social Movement Research. The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Sociology, p.414.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Liao, C. and Meuser, J.D., 2014. Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), pp.1434-1452.
Marcus W. Dicksona, Deanne N. Den Hartogb, and Jacqueline K. Mitchelsona, 2003. Research on leadership in across-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions
Nahavandi, A., 2016. The Art and Science of Leadership -Global Edition. Pearson.
Ou, A.Y., Hartnell, C.A., Kinicki, A.J. and Karam, E.P., 2013, January. A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis of Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Unit Performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 10037). Academy of Management.
Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., de Rivas, S., Herrero, M., Moreno-Jiménez, B. and Van Dierendonck, D., 2014. Leading people positively: cross-cultural validation of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS). The Spanish journal of psychology, 17, p.E63.
Tzu, L. and Adams, J.Q., 2016. Cross-cultural leadership: leading around the world Paul J Hanges, Juliet R Aike Tzu n, Joo Park and Junjie Su. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, pp.64-69.