Dutch social scientist Geert Hofstede famously developed the Power Dimension Index, which compares a number of characteristics that allows us to compare different cultures. Hofstede argued that these cultural differences can explain around half of the differences observed in how we react to various situations as managers.

A recent study from IESE suggests that these cultural differences extend to how we perceive leadership in itself. The research explores how differences in nationality affect how leadership is perceived in international teams.

The researchers analyzed around 150 teams and found that the nationality of employees directly impacted their perceptions of leadership, and even indirectly impacted the perceived competence of leaders.

National perceptions

These differences were primarily noticed in the perceptions of warmth and the perceptions of leaders’ competence. For instance, the study found that people tended to have warmer perceptions of leaders from cultures that were similar to their own.

Warmth and competence are key measures through which leaders are judged. Indeed, research from the University of Michigan found that female leaders are expected to score highly on both in a way that their male leaders are not. While male leaders can get away with having Machiavellian tendencies, female leaders are expected to be warm and caring as well as competent.

The IESE study suggests that nationality also plays a role in the warmth we have toward a leader, as well as the warmth we expect from them in return. The second key parameter was that of competence, with the status of the leader especially important in countries defined by Hofstede as “high power distance”, where there is often a high degree of deference towards those with high status.

The complete picture?

The work of Hofstede clearly underlines how culture can play a crucial role in how we approach leadership (and leaders), but research from the University of Missouri suggests it’s not quite as straightforward as we might think.

The study saw around 6,500 managers analysed from over 14 countries to try and understand how they responded to a wide range of different situations. When the data was analysed, it showed that despite there being some differences, there were far more similarities than differences in terms of the way managers responded.

“We all want a higher quality of life, a desirable workplace environment and meaningful work — no matter our home country,” the author explains say. “In management theory, we focus more on leaders’ differences rather than their similarities. By analysing the data in a new way, I found that managers across country borders and across cultures are more alike than different.”

Power axis

Wharton’s late Russell Ackoff was another who devoted much of their working life to the study of power. He argued that power relationships typically unfold along two axis, which allow managers to examine not only the ends but the means of their company.

He outlined four different states an organisation and its leadership can reside in:

• Ends autocratic/means autocratic – This is the kind of domineering leader commonly found in High Power Distance cultures. This kind of leader will dominate decision making and be the focal point of all the organisation does.
• Ends autocratic/means democratic – In the next state, by contrast, the leader is more open to getting input and buy in from employees. Autonomous work groups for instance are a well-used example of this kind of approach.
• Ends democratic/means autocratic – The third state is one that isn’t especially common in the private sector, but is much more so in the public sector, especially in environments like hospitals. Such an approach assumes that people don’t know the best means of achieving an outcome and, therefore need ‘experts’ to decide for them.
• Ends democratic/means democratic – The final approach sees democracy applied throughout. This is very much the model applied in servant leadership style organisations.

While there isn’t a clear and simplistic overlap between nationality and the perception and expectation of leadership, the IESE researchers nonetheless believe that nationality is something organisations should be aware of so that they create an inclusive environment that is free from biases, especially when operating in multinational teams.

The research underscores the need for inclusive organizational practices that consider both identity and status dynamics to ensure that teams are effective and power is distributed in an equitable way. Nationality may not provide a complete picture of how we perceive leadership, but it can help to shape leadership perceptions and dynamics in multinational teams. As a result, when striving to get the best out of international teams, we should aim to address both the cultural and status-related factors at play in global work environments.