Lost in Translation
For a long time, many people assumed that a single, best way of leading must exist and that good leadership looks the same in all situations. That premise led us to expend enormous energy seeking out that one best way and training people to lead in whichever style was considered to be the best. These efforts created a generation of would-be organizational leaders who believe that leadership should be guided by a single, best style - a way of thinking that popular authors and trainers perpetuate.
| Related Articles | ||||||
|
However, leadership is contingent on situation and context. In our rapidly diversifying and globalizing work world, national and cultural differences must be considered when weighing the applicability of leadership approaches in a cross-cultural context. We must remember that researchers have identified significant national and cultural differences in work-related attitudes and values, generally clustered by language, religion, geography and level of economic development. This is very important, because many of the dominant leadership theories were developed in North America and Europe, by Americans and Europeans, studying Americans and Europeans. Although we should not assume that American or European leadership approaches do not apply to other cultures or societies, we always must determine whether such approaches can work across cultures.
While cultural differences certainly influence leadership theory and practice, the good news is that ongoing research indicates that basic leadership functions appear to be universal, even if leaders perform those functions differently in each cultural context. At the bottom line, leadership involves a situation requiring change and people who are willing to make that change happen. When it comes to leadership, the situation matters.
Leadership is a process by which people influence other people. But people's attitudes toward influence and how to go about influencing others differ substantially by culture. As might be expected, the effectiveness of specific influence tactics varies by culture as well. While one might effectively influence people in many cultures by using rational persuasion and by collaboration and consultation, other cultures might be influenced more effectively through common tactics such as gift-giving, socializing and pressure exertion.
Work-related values vary as well, which brings up a very important concern for students of leadership to consider when applying American and European leadership concepts across cultures. The United States has what may be the most individualistic culture in the world, followed by the Germanic and Nordic societies. As a result, many leadership approaches focus on individual leaders and their personality traits, style, behavior and charisma. This is also true in the fire service, where leadership training advances a traditional, leader-centric model. However, contemporary leadership research reveals that people's understanding of what constitutes effective leadership is changing. People have shifted their view of effective leadership from traditional and individualistic toward collective and collaborative, leaving those traditional approaches inconsistent with the emerging understanding of leadership behind.
Two things are clear. First, all leadership contexts are distinct. Variations across cultures will influence the effectiveness of any leadership approach and determine just how would-be leaders will lead in a given context. Cultural differences might include people's values, needs and expectations for leadership. Second, while essential leadership functions such as fostering teamwork, aligning tasks and goals, and maintaining morale seem universally applicable, a culture's values and expectations influence how a person performs those functions.
Work-related values influence people's expectations for leadership and how they respond to attempts at leadership. Whenever importing or exporting a leadership approach, the question should be, “Will this work here?” We should not assume that American and European leadership approaches do not apply to other cultures and societies, but we should not assume that they do either. It is OK to be a skeptical consumer of leadership knowledge.
Mike DeGrosky is chief executive officer of the Guidance Group, a consulting organization specializing in the human and organizational aspects of the fire service. He also serves as an adjunct instructor in leadership studies at Fort Hays State University. His interests include leadership, strategy, and bringing the concepts of learning organizations and high-reliability organizing alive in fire organizations. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. focused on organizational leadership. He can be reached at info@guidancegroup.org.
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
