In these times of change and disruption, being seen as a transformational leader is generally something quite sought after in managerial circles. It fits into the (rather naive) belief that a single heroic leader can part the sea, bend reality to their will and generally do great things by force of their talent and personality. Of course, the reality is somewhat different, and a recent study from Iowa State University highlights the cultural factors that go into any kind of change effort.
In total, the research analyzed around 200 previous studies of transformational leadership, which collectively covered approximately 57,000 employees from 34 countries. Their aim was to test whether culture played a significant role in transformational leadership.
Firstly, the analysis identified four key components of transformational leadership:
- Idealized influence: The leader is a role model and behaves the way he/she wants employees to behave.
- Inspirational motivation: The leader presents a vision for the future of the organization to inspire employees.
- Individualized consideration: The leader develops one-on-one relationships to help employees reach their potential.
- Intellectual stimulation: The leader encourages employees to be creative and challenges them to go above and beyond.
Transformational catnip
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the analysis revealed a number of circumstances in which transformational leadership was not effective. These were especially so in cultures where gender egalitarianism was high and men and women should be treated equally. It was also unsuccessful in cultures with low levels of future orientation, where people didn’t wish to delay gratification and invest in the future. Similarly, if cultures were low on uncertainty avoidance, transformational leadership had minimal impact.
“In most western countries, transformational leadership simply doesn’t have a strong relationship with how employees behave and function,” the researchers explain. “This includes the U.S., but especially Western and Northern Europe. There the relationship is almost zero.”
Where transformational leadership was quite effective was in developing countries, but the researchers think our distorted view of transformational leadership has largely been caused by many studies focusing purely on employee feedback that was measured at a solitary point in time. This inevitably gives an incomplete picture of the situation.
“We may have gotten a distorted sense of how much this leadership style matters, simply because a lot of the work took a shortcut approach to doing the research,” they explain. “As a result, it overestimated the importance of transformational leadership.”
Cultural differences
The authors outline a range of possible factors that may underpin these apparent cultural differences. For instance, transformational leadership tends to work when it’s rare. If all leaders exhibit ‘transformational’ behaviors, it’s perhaps less likely to have an impact. The authors suggest this is why the approach is effective in some developing countries.
“It’s also possible that organizations in American and Western European countries are so effective at all the things that produce high functioning employees — training, selection, performance management — that being an effective leader doesn’t add much to making employees highly effective,” they say.
