Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Leadership in a global context: New directions in research and theory

development
Richard M. Steers a,*, Carlos Sanchez-Runde b, Luciara Nardon c
a
Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405, USA
b
IESE, University of Navarra, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
c
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The goal of this special issue is to present a set of articles that, collectively, explores the interrelationships
Culture between national culture, leadership, and organizational behavior. Our hope is that these articles will
Gender summarize where the field currently stands, as well as suggest new directions for future research and
Global leadership
theory development on this important topic. To achieve this, we include 14 articles from authors
Global teams
GLOBE
representing 13 countries. The methodologies used here include meta-analyses, case studies, and
Humanistic leadership interview studies, although the majority represents conceptual model building based on critical analyses
Leadership of existing theories and research. Management implications are discussed.
Organizational culture ß 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Positive global leadership
Servant leadership
Strategic leadership
Transformational leadership

1. Introduction: the leadership challenge
When British-born Howard Stringer became CEO of Sony, his
charge was to revolutionize the company and return it to its former
competitiveness. The company required new leadership, and he
had proven himself before in previous executive positions. Upon
arriving in Japan, however, Stringer quickly realized that his
leadership had limits. ‘‘I don’t want to change Sony’s culture to the
point that it’s unrecognizable from the founder’s vision,’’ he
observed (Kane & Dvorak, 2007, p. A1). ‘‘That’s the balancing act.
You can’t go through a Japanese company with a sledgehammer.’’
The irony here is that, in a previous position as an American CEO, he
could.
Therein lies the challenge for global leaders. Whether in Japan
or the U.S., Germany or Mexico, Russia or Thailand, global leaders
up and down the hierarchy face the same challenge: how to adapt
their leadership style to fit local circumstances in order to achieve
corporate objectives. Yet when we turn to the myriad of materials
written on the topic, we are often hard-pressed to find meaningful
answers.
Consider: more articles and books have been written about
leadership than any other topic in the field of management. Many
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rmsteers@gmail.com (R.M. Steers), CSanchez-Runde@iese.edu
(C. Sanchez-Runde), Luciara_Nardon@carleton.ca (L. Nardon).
of these examine various theories of leadership, comparing the
relative advantages and disadvantages of each. Others represent
serious empirical studies of actual leader behavior. And still others
are popular works that seem to offer a secret elixir designed to
transform ordinary managers into extraordinary leaders. What
most of these materials fail to do, however, is recognize that
leadership processes can vary significantly across geographic
regions. That is, much of what is written discusses or proposes a
particular leadership model that has been constructed based on
largely Western beliefs, values, and cultures, and then offers this
model to the world as an accepted strategy for managerial and
organizational effectiveness.
In this regard, a noted U.S. leadership expert recently observed
‘‘leadership is like beauty; it’s hard to define, but you know it when
you see it’’ (Bennis, 1989). Unfortunately, both empirical studies
and personal experiences suggest otherwise (Chen & Lee, 2008;
Dickson, Den Hartog, & Castaño, 2009; Osland, Taylor, &
Mendenhall, 2009). That is, research has consistently demonstrat-
ed that some cultures (e.g., Russia, USA) prefer leaders who are
take-charge, visible, and assertive, while others (e.g., Norway,
Japan) prefer leaders who are much less visible, relatively
speaking, and move behind the scenes to accomplish things. Some
cultures (e.g., Mexico, Spain) prefer leaders who stand above the
crowd and command respect, while others (e.g., Malaysia, Laos)
prefer leaders who are humble and remain part of the crowd
(Aycan, 2008; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). As managers around the
globe increasingly face the challenges of leading employees from

1090-9516/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001
480 R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482
different cultural backgrounds with divergent expectations about
hierarchy, power, and interpersonal relations, it becomes impor-
tant for them to understand how cultural dynamics can influence
effective leadership.
2. Contemporary approaches to leadership
Much of the confusion limiting our understanding of leadership
processes in different countries can be traced to the initial
assumptions we make about the topic. These assumptions guide
what we choose to focus on. As we know from research on
cognition and selective perception, people typically discover
things based on what they are looking for. So perhaps the best
place to begin is with the assumptions we typically have going into
a search for the essence of global leadership. In our experience,
managers—and to some extent researchers—often approach this
issue in one of three different ways (see Exhibit 1).
2.1. Universal approaches
Some people consider leadership to be a generalizable, or
universal, behavior regardless of where it is exercised. In other
words, leadership is leadership is leadership. This approach is
consistent with the ‘leadership as beauty’ notion mentioned
previously. We refer to this as the universal approach. Underlying
this approach is the belief that leadership traits and processes are
relatively constant across cultures. To the extent that this is
correct, the goal of managers is to adopt a leadership model, such
as charismatic leadership, under the assumption that its applica-
bility is universal regardless of location.
Many Western theories of leadership are built on this premise.
A good example of this can be seen in the ongoing debate in the
West over the relative merits of transformational and transactional
leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Advocates of transformational
leadership, in which managers work to create a universally
accepted vision of where the group or organization should go and
then use moral persuasion (and often charismatic leadership) to
reinforce this mission, argue that such an approach is superior to
the transactional model, in which concrete exchange relationships
with employees largely determine results. The problem here is that
recent research in Japan, for example, found that neither of these
Exhibit 1. Contemporary approaches to global leadership.
approaches is very effective in that country (Ishikawa, in press).
Transformational leaders are often seen as being too abstract,
while transactional leaders are sometimes seen as being too
mercenary—and both are criticized for being too manipulative.
Instead, successful Japanese managers tend to prefer something
called ‘‘gate-keeping leadership,’’ where they work to reduce the
barriers to successful performance among their subordinates. Here
is the problem: if these Western theories fail to work in Japan, one
wonders where else they might also fail (e.g., Brazil, Russia, Egypt,
India, etc.).
In this regard, it is unfortunate that despite decades of research
supporting situational approaches to leadership effectiveness,
companies still routinely sponsor leadership training programs
that stress a few ‘keys’ to successful leadership and ignore critical
variations in local environments. One might suggest that many of
these programs are doomed to failure from the outset.
2.2. Normative approaches
A second approach to thinking about leadership in a global
context is to focus on enduring personal skills and abilities that are
thought to characterize effective global managers. These models
are prescriptive in nature, and suggest how managers should
approach leadership in global settings. We refer to this as the
normative approach. The focus is on the leader as a global manager.
It is assumed that certain sets of leader traits and abilities are
common to all managers regardless of where they are working.
Recent work on the ‘global mindset’ and ‘cultural intelligence’
illustrate this approach (Earley & Ang, 2003; Javidan, Steers, & Hitt,
2007; Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). For
example, successful global leaders are thought by some to exhibit
cosmopolitanism, cognitive complexity, mental inquisitiveness,
honesty, humility, and personal resiliency. Leaders who possess
this cluster of skills and abilities are thought to be prepared to
manage effectively throughout much of the world. As a result, the
management development question is how to instill these traits
and abilities into people who must work successfully around the
world in highly diverse cultural settings. However, whether these
traits are indeed commonplace among successful managers in
different parts of the world has yet to be demonstrated. This raises
questions about the normative assumptions underlying the model.
2.3. Contingency approaches
The third approach, which we refer to as the contingency
approach, begins with the assumption that there are no universals
in describing effective leadership. That is, successful leaders in
New York may fail in Tokyo or Paris if they are unable to modify
their behaviors to suit the unique local environments. This
approach looks at leadership as a culturally embedded process,
not a series of personal traits of the manager or followers. Here the
focus is on the leader as a local manager, not a global one, and it is
assumed that the characteristics for success will vary with the
situation.
A good example of this approach can be found in the GLOBE
project, a multinational study of culture and leadership in 62
countries (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). The
principal finding of this study is that to a large degree leadership is
culturally contingent; that is, the qualities of effective leaders often
vary across cultures. For example, successful U.S. managers tend to
score higher than their Chinese counterparts on such character-
istics as assertiveness, performance orientation, and individualism,
while Chinese managers tend to score higher than Americans on
power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The important point
here is that GLOBE was able to track systematic trends in
leadership characteristics across cultures.
 R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482
Another example of the contingency approach can be seen in
the commonplace use of symbolic leadership in Japan or Korea,
where executives publicly and willingly accept both the responsi-
bility and the consequences for corporate failures. Such behavior is
commonplace and often required in East Asia, but not necessarily
in other regions. Witness, for example, the testimony of Toyota
Motor Co.’s President and CEO before the U.S. Congress, in which he
accepted full responsibility for mechanical problems associated
with the company’s cars. At the same time, and in similar
congressional testimony, BP’s British CEO worked diligently to
avoid accepting similar responsibility following his company’s oil
spill in the Gulf.
3. Limitations of contemporary models
While all three of these approaches add value to our efforts to
understand leadership in a global context, it is our opinion that
they all miss the mark in sufficiently explicating the leadership
construct as it relates to global diversity. As a result, our ability to
help global managers prepare for overseas assignments remains
somewhat limited. In particular, we suggest that focusing more
squarely on two issues could advance our understanding of
leadership processes: (a) the meaning of leadership as a cultural
construct and (b) the variations in local expectations regarding
leader behavior. In short, in our view we must move beyond
traditional Western models of leadership and take a more
cosmopolitan approach to the subject.
3.1. Leadership as a cultural construct
First and foremost, it is important to recognize that leadership is
a cultural construct. Its meaning is embedded in the diverse
cultures where it is exercised, and changes accordingly. Most
important here, it is not a Western construct that is easily
expanded to global dimensions. To understand this, consider a
simple question: What is leadership? The difficulty in answering
this question lies in the differing meaning of the construct itself in
different cultures. In most Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., U.K., U.S.,
Australia), leadership generally has positive connotations. Leaders
tend to be respected, admired, and, indeed, sometimes revered,
whether they are in the political or business arena. Clearly, this is
not a universal truth. The opposite view of leaders can also be
found in many countries (e.g., Mexico, Egypt, Romania), where
widespread distrust and fear of power or the dislike of privilege
prevails.
Moreover, a direct translation of the word ‘leader’ into different
languages can invoke a variety of images, including dictator,
parent, expert, and first among equals. Some of these terms have
strong connotations of highly directive or authoritarian styles of
leadership that many people reject. Leaders are not necessarily to
be trusted. We wonder about their motives and true goals or of
other potentially undesirable behaviors and characteristics. At the
same time, in many egalitarian societies, terms like ‘followers’ or
‘subordinates’ are also seen as being inappropriate. For instance,
subordinates in the Netherlands are frequently referred to as
coworkers (medewerkers) instead of subordinates, and leaders are
careful to avoid appearing condescending.
With such a diversity of opinions concerning the characteristics
of effective leaders, how is it possible to reach agreement on even a
simple definition of leadership? Moreover, what does this diversity
of views suggest about our ability to apply largely Western-based
leadership theories across borders? What does this say about our
ability to build or implement leadership development programs
that can be used effectively in various regions of the world? And
what does this say about so-called leadership gurus who travel the
world with their packaged leadership programs?
481
To make matters even more complex, not only does the term
‘leader’ translate differently across various cultural groups, but
also the meanings that are construed from these translations can
also differ, sometimes significantly. For example, in individualistic
societies (e.g., the U.S., Canada, the U.K.), leadership typically refers
to a single person who takes charge and ‘leads’ the organization to
targeted performance. In more collectivistic societies (e.g., Korea,
Japan, and China), however, leadership is often less associated with
individuals and more closely aligned with group endeavors. In
hierarchical societies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia),
leaders are often seen as being separate and apart from their
followers, while in more egalitarian societies (e.g., Sweden,
Denmark), they are often seen as more approachable and less
intimidating. Indeed, the rather common Anglo-American cele-
bration of the accomplishments of various leaders stands in stark
contrast to Lao Tzu’s ancient, but still widely cited observation that
‘‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists, who talks
little, and when his work is done and his aim fulfilled, people will
say, we did this ourselves.’’
3.2. Leadership expectations
The second concern with existing approaches to leadership
focuses on the expectations surrounding the behavior of successful
leaders, including the cultural underpinnings of such expectations.
These expectations arise from society at large, local circumstances,
subordinates, coworkers, and the leaders themselves. The GLOBE
study clearly contributes to this understanding, but more is
required concerning the fundamental normative beliefs and
processes underlying a leader’s behavior (House et al., 2004). That
is, we need to better understand the ‘why and how’ underlying the
process, not just the ‘what and who.’
If there is any doubt about the systematic variability in what
constitutes effective leader behavior, we need look no further than
the observations by various managers and employees from
different countries. In the West, the French often expect their
leaders to be cultivated—highly educated in the arts and
mathematics. The Dutch stress egalitarianism and are skeptical
about the value and status of leaders. Terms like ‘leader’ and
‘manager’ can even carry a stigma in some organizations. And
Americans are often schizophrenic in their choice of leaders; some
like leaders who empower and encourage their subordinates,
while others prefer leaders who are bold, forceful, confidant, and
risk-oriented.
In the East, Chinese leaders are often expected to establish and
nurture personal relationships, practice benevolence toward
subordinates, be dignified and aloof but sympathetic, and treat
the interests of employees like their own. Malaysians traditionally
expect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest,
and dignified. And Japanese leaders are often expected to focus on
developing a healthy relationship with their employees, in which
employees and managers share the same fate. In short, expecta-
tions concerning appropriate leader behaviors can vary consider-
ably across cultures. This is a point not lost on experienced
expatriates and frequent flyers, but sometimes ignored by their
academic counterparts.
4. Purpose of special issue
With these challenges and unresolved issues in mind, the
editors of JWB agreed to develop a special issue focusing on the
topic of leadership in a global context. The aim of this endeavor was
to collect, review, and publish papers that critically evaluated
existing theory and research, as well as suggested future directions
for theory building and research. The development of this proposal
was guided by the following five criteria. All papers should:
482 R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482
 Contribute to the conceptual or theoretical development of the
topic of leadership within a global context.
 Take a comparative or cross-cultural approach to leadership, as
opposed to single-country studies.
 Focus on critical analyses of recent research on various aspects of
culture and leadership, push the topic in some new directions
based on the specific expertise of the author, and end by
suggesting a focused future research agenda.
 Take broad stroke and focus on major issues, as opposed to more
narrow or esoteric topics.
 Include authors from a diverse array of cultures and countries to
add conceptual richness, accuracy, and perhaps greater authority
to the final papers.
The principal goal in compiling this special issue was to collect a
set of papers that, taken together, represents an important
contribution to the field. Ideally, this collection should represent
a gestalt of what we know and what we need to learn about
leadership processes across cultures. To achieve this, we accepted
14 papers from authors representing 13 countries. All papers were
independently reviewed by two members of the JWB editorial
board and revised prior to acceptance. The methodologies used in
these papers vary considerably, including meta-analyses, case
studies, and interview studies, although most are conceptual
model-building efforts based on critical analyses of published
research.
The papers in this special issue represent a diversity of
perspectives on the topic of leadership across cultures. They also
illustrate all three of the contemporary approaches to modeling
global leadership, as discussed above. Some of these papers focus
on the conceptual challenges of defining leadership within a global
context (Dickson, Castaño, Magomaeva, and Den Hartog; Men-
denhall, Reiche, Bird, and Osland). Others explore emerging
theoretical developments as they relate to leadership in a global
context, including positive, humanistic, transformational, and
servant leadership (Youssef and Luthans; Davila and Elvira;
Takahashi, Ishikawa, and Karnai; Mittal and Dorfman). One article
looks back on twenty years of research on GLOBE, and suggests a
future research agenda (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian,
and House). Several papers focus on leader behaviors within
specific regions of the world, including Latin America, the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA), and East Asia (Davila and Elvira;
Kabasakal, Dastmalchian, Karacay, and Bayaktar; and Takahashi
et al.). Others examine several specific aspects of leadership and
organization in the managerial world, including strategic leader-
ship, leadership of global teams, leadership and organizational
culture, and the role of culture in the emergence of women as
leaders (Wang, Waldman, and Zhang; Zander, Mockaitis, and
Butler; Shim and Steers; Toh and Leonardelli). The final paper
examines leadership competencies and the effectiveness of
developmental programs aimed at facilitating this (Caligiuri and
Tarique).
We hope this collection of papers will stimulate new critical
thinking, research, and theory development on leadership in a
global context. We are appreciative of the authors of this special
issue for their expertise, creativity, resolve in helping make this
project a success. We are also grateful to the staff at JWB for their
support of this project. In the final analysis, organizations—public
and private—will stand or fall based on the quality of their
leadership. The more we can do as scholars to help understand this
phenomenon, and develop practical strategies for the development
of global leaders, the more useful we become as change agents in
an evolving and often turbulent world.
References
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to leadership. In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D.
Thomas (Eds.), The handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 219–237).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chen, C., & Lee, Y. (2008). Leadership and management in China. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Dickson, M., Den Hartog, D., & Castaño, N. (2009). Understanding leadership across
cultures. In R. Bhagat & R. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organiza-
tions, and work (pp. 219–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Earley, P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Javidan, M., Steers, R., & Hitt, M. (2007). The global mindset. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kane, Y., & Dvorak, P. (2007). Howard Stringer, Japanese CEO. The Wall Street Journal,
March: A1.
Mendenhall, M., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Global leader-
ship: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.
Osland, J., Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Global leadership: Progress and
challenges. In R. Bhagat & R. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organiza-
tions, and work (pp. 245–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, A. (2007). Cross-national cross-cultural organizational
behavior research. Journal of Management, 33(3): 462–468.