2
Abstract
3 Acknowledgement During the entire process of writing this master thesis, I have been blessed with the valuable support of multiple people. I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all people that have somehow been involved in this project.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Rian Drogendijk, for always taking (lots) of time for giving feedback and coming up with creative solutions when I did not see them. Your positivity is truly motivating and caused that I always walked out of your office happier than I walked in. Secondly, I would like to give thanks to my parents. To my father, for his critical comments on every piece of work I sent him, no matter when. To my mother, for always asking about my progress and calling me after important deadlines.
Lastly, a word of gratitude goes to my friends, who have been very supportive and have shown a constant interest in my work. A special thanks goes out to Vera, thank you for proofreading my thesis with lots of patience and a critical eye.
5
Introduction
Since the 1950’s, many researchers have paid attention to leadership behavior (Yukl, 2001). Leadership is considered an important topic, and this research seeks to elaborate the literature about it. House et al. (2004) write that leadership is ‘the ability to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members’. However, a simple definition of leadership does not demonstrate how leaders exert their influence.
Leadership styles are the concepts that represent the different ways of decision-making, of motivating and guiding followers. The GLOBE study is one of the most widely known studies on leadership styles (Javidan et al., 2006). The study identified six leadership styles that describe how leaders can behave, namely the charismatic, team-oriented, participative, humane leadership styles that describe how leaders can behave, namely the charismatic, team-oriented, autonomous and self-protective style. Leadership styles are present throughout all forms of social relationships (Silva, 2009). But what are the determinants of leadership?
In answering this question, there is a wide range of literature that could be considered. For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) have researched the influence of gender on leadership styles, Aronson (2001) wrote about the link between ethical theory and leadership styles and Bruno et al. (2008) have investigated the influence of personal values on leadership styles. The GLOBE study (2001) considered national cultural values as a determinant of leadership styles. So, much research has been done, but what is still missing?
6
the attainment of its goals’ (Hofer & Schendel, 1978 p25). Leadership clearly fits within this definition, because leaders in organizations determine the strategic direction that is taken. In summary, it would be interesting to look at the link between political orientations and leadership style. But what is political orientation?
When looking at political orientation, one can make a distinction between political conservative and liberal ideologies, based on people’s ideas about concepts like civil rights, racial equalities, socialized medicine, labor unions, etc. (Jost et al., 2009). This distinction is commonly used in the literature, for example by Chin et al. (2013). The conservatism – liberalism scale is a key construct when looking at a person’s basic beliefs. (Schwarz, 1996; Feather, 1979).
The GLOBE study (2004) already mentioned before is an extensive study that looks at the relation between national culture and leadership styles. This study investigated the culture in different countries, where after it was tested if leadership preferences were different in different countries. Political orientation resembles culture in the sense that it influences the way people look at societal issues. Both concepts represent values that determine the way in which people make decisions. Leadership is an outcome of these decisions. Therefore, it is appropriate to also consider culture as a concept in this research. This can be done by conducting a comparative study.
When looking at Hofstede’s (2010) and the GLOBE (2004) cultural dimensions, one finds that China and the Netherlands are culturally very different. Furthermore, the political environment differs a lot in these countries. In the Netherlands, there is a multiparty system and the society is very divided about societal issues. In China, the one party political system does not allow choice. In a following chapter the systems will be discussed in some more detail. Goal of this research is comparing China and the Netherlands while investigating the link between political orientations and leadership styles. The research question therefore is:
What is the influence of political orientation on the preferred leadership style of future leaders in the Netherlands and China?
7
include questions regarding the determinants of leadership styles, in this particular case political orientation.
8
Theory
This thesis investigates the influence of political values of future leaders on the leadership style that they prefer. Firstly, the research will zoom in on leadership: What is leadership, what are the different leadership theories and what are the GLOBE leadership styles? Then we will look at the determinants of leadership style, and to what extent personal values matter for leaders in organizations. After that, national culture is described in general, for the Netherlands and for China. It is also linked to leadership style. Many researchers argue that political orientation is shaped by the environment (Alford et al., 2005). Therefore, the political environment is briefly introduced. Then we will move on to a central concept for this research: political orientation.
What is leadership?
Many scholars have paid attention to leadership and to the different styles of leaders (Yukl, 2001). The GLOBE researchers define organizational leadership as ‘the ability to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members’. (House et al., 2001) A leader can be defined as ‘a group member whose influence on group attitudes, performance and decision making greatly exceeds that of the other members of the group (Simonton, 1994).
In the literature, there are three main types of leadership theories, namely trait theories, behavioral theories and situational theories (Sinding et al., 2014). Trait theories state that a leader receives leadership traits at birth, and these traits are not changed during the life of an individual. Stogdill (1948) suggests that there are 5 traits that distinguish leaders from followers: self-confidence, intelligence, confidence, level of energy and task-related knowledge. Behavioral theories focus on how leaders behave and on the determinants of these behaviors. Lastly, situational models assume that there is no best type of leadership in all situations, but that situational factors define what kind leadership is effective in a specific situation. The most well-known theory here is the contingency model by Fiedler (1964). It focuses on two dimensions: situational control and motivation.
9
it is impossible to include all possible circumstances and situations that would be required to call it a contingency approach. But what kind of theory is the most suitable?
For this research it would be appropriate to consider behavioral theory. The determinants of political orientation are partly biological, and partly psychological (Feldman & Johnston, 2014). Research has demonstrated that political orientation is partly heritable (Alford et al., 2005). The other part is psychological, and developed during the lifetime of an individual. The behavioral theories are suitable, because these theories look at the specific behavior of a leader. Behavioral theories do not seek inborn traits, but look at the actual behavior of leaders. Political orientation is also partly given at birth, which makes this a suitable method (Alford et al., 2005). Different scholars have conducted research in this field. In the following section the most important behavioral theories are mentioned. Behavioral Leadership Styles Blake and Mouton (1964) write in their leadership model, the ‘Managerial Grid’, that leaders base their styles on two dimensions: concern for people and concern for production. Along these two scales, there are five leadership styles: the impoverished style, the produce or perish style, the middle of the road style, the country club style and the team style. Burns (1978) identified two different types of leadership, transactional and transformational. A transformational leader is characterized by a clear vision of the future, intellectual stimulation of employees in an organization, and attention for differences between people. Transactional leaders exchange rewards for behaviors that are desired. Lewin (1938) distinguished three types of leadership styles: the autocratic-, democratic-and laissez-faire style. These styles are determined along different scales: on the one hand leaders that behave democratically, and on the other hand leaders that behave autocratically and do not include subordinates in their decision making.
10
GLOBE Leadership Styles
GLOBE (2004) states that people have a set of beliefs about the set of attributes, personality characteristics, skills and behaviors that contribute to, or impede leadership. A leadership style is a stable pattern of behavior manifested by a leader (Eagly & Johanessen- Schmidt, 2001).
GLOBE distinguishes six different leadership styles: charismatic, team-oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous and self-protective styles (House et al., 2004). The GLOBE researchers started by identifying a large amount of attributes that can contribute to or impede good leadership. Then they proceeded by collecting data from 17300 middle managers from different countries, which resulted in a categorization of these attributes into 21 ‘primary dimensions of leadership’. Statistical analysis allowed consolidation of these primary dimensions into six leadership dimensions. These will be further explained in a later section.
Determinants of leadership styles
11
The theory of neoclassical economics suggests that managers’ values have very little influence on the decision-making (Augier and Teece, 2009).
New institutional theory suggests that the impacts that managers have are minor, as they are constrained by isomorphic forces (Lieberson and O’Connor, 1972). The agency model includes both agents (managers) and principals (owners). An agency problem occurs when the interests of the principal and the agent are not aligned. So managers can pursue their own interests. Therefore in the agency model it is argued that managers are able to inject their own personal values into the company’s decision-making process (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).
Steiner (1969) writes that values of CEOs are reflected in the network of aims of an enterprise, and they have an influence on the way in which a firm moves. Selznick (1957) writes that the effect of personal involvement on the rational choice of methods and goals is significant. Other studies take the environment into consideration. Montanari (1978) writes that the larger the role of the environment in formulating business strategy, the smaller the role of individual managers. The upper echelons theory, finally, writes that CEOs act on the basis of their own interpretations as they face strategic questions, and that these interpretations are formed based on the experiences, values and personalities they have developed. (Hambrick, 1984) So according to this theory a leader’s values, and thus political orientation could have an influence.
This research will follow the upper echelons perspective, in which a leaders’ frame of reference can influence the decision-making processes of organizations. One very important and well-researched concept related to personal values is national culture. National Culture
As already introduced before, the GLOBE study investigated the link between national culture and leadership styles (GLOBE, 2004). But what is national culture?
12
childhood that differentiates one group from another. Jaeger (1986) defines culture as common theories of behaviour or mental programmes that are shared.
Hofstede brought attention to cultural research when he created his cultural framework (2010), which contains a lot of information about the national cultures of countries along 6 cultural dimensions. It is the most widely used cultural framework in the academic literature. Therefore it is appropriate to mention this crucial framework in this section about culture. The GLOBE studies (2004) are also widely known for their culture framework. This research is more recent, and builds to some extent on the Hofstede framework (2010). The relation between the two studies will be discussed later.
Culture is also an important determinant of leadership styles. The GLOBE study (2004) explored the relation between national culture and leadership styles. The researchers found clear links between cultural clusters and preferred leadership styles. Culture can therefore not be ignored in this study. To include national culture elements in this research as well, the research will follow a comparative design. Two countries were chosen, China and the Netherlands, because they score very different on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, as well as on the GLOBE dimensions. The cultural dimensions will be explained in the following section and the findings are summarized in a graph (see figure 1 & 2).
When looking at the GLOBE study (2004) and the Hofstede framework (2010), one can note that there are many similarities as well as differences. Since the development of the GLOBE model (2004), there has been heavy debate between the two research teams. Hostede’s research put cross-cultural research in the spotlight.
13
avoidance. The name of long-term orientation was changed to future orientation. Individualism- collectivism was changed, because the GLOBE researchers did not accept the anthropological logic behind the dimension. They pursue political correctness and face validity by splitting the dimension into two dimensions: in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism. The masculinity-femininity dimension is divided into four components by adding the dimensions of assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, performance orientation and humane orientation. Hofstede states that only three of the dimensions, performance orientation, humane orientation and future orientation do not originally stem from Hofstede’s dimensions.
Both models are highly valuable for international business management research (Shi & Wang, 2011). Also, Smith (2006) writes that the field of international business research can benefit from both studies.
Hofstede used data from employees in one company that were generally no managers. In contrast, the GLOBE studies looked for respondents that were managers, and the research was driven by academic research. The GLOBE studies designed their dimensions for the organizational and the societal level.
In the context of this comparative study including China, I follow the advice of Wang & Shi (2011) to use GLOBE, because Hofstede used an estimate based on Hong Kong and Taiwan to measure culture in China, whereas GLOBE did their actual measurements in China. Furthermore, the research of GLOBE is more recent, which may make it a better fit for this thesis, in which the sample will be relatively young.
Culture in the Netherlands and China
14
graph can be found below the descriptions in which the scores per country cluster are summarized.
Hofstede (2010) writes that the national culture in the Netherlands is characterized by relatively low power distance. This means that power is divided, and large differences between individuals are not tolerated. Equal rights are important, superiors are accessible, a leader should be coaching, and management empowers and facilitates. The GLOBE dimension of Power Distance does not completely match this outcome. GLOBE (2004) states that power distance in the Germanic cluster is at a medium level; some authority and power differences are accepted.
The Netherlands is a very individualistic country. Individuals take care of themselves and their immediate relatives only (Hofstede, 2010). This matches the GLOBE study (2004) where it is stated that institutional collectivism, as well as in-group collectivism is low, implying that pride and loyalty are not expressed towards the in-group, and collective distribution of resources and collective action is not to a large extent stimulated.
On Hofstede’s (2010) masculinity dimension, the Netherlands scores low: It is a feminine society. Hofstede’s research measured femininity as the lack of masculinity, and GLOBE did measure femininity. Being a feminine society means that liking what you do is more important than being the best. A good work-life balance is important, and conflicts are resolved by negotiation and compromise. As written before, the GLOBE researchers split up this dimension into four dimensions, being performance orientation, assertiveness, humane orientation and gender egalitarianism. The Germanic country cluster scores high on Performance orientation, this means that innovation is encouraged, and there is a focus on high standards and performance improvement. There is a search for excellence. Secondly, the assertiveness dimension is high in the Germanic country cluster. Societies within this cluster are to a low extent humane oriented. Being fair, altruistic, caring for others and kind is relatively little stimulated. A medium score on gender egalitarianism implies that gender inequality is to some extent minimized, which contradicts the Hofstede (2010) study.
15
2010). People need rules, there is an urge to be busy and work hard, and innovation may be resisted. This contradicts with the GLOBE (2004) outcome of performance orientation in which it was stated that innovation is discouraged. The GLOBE study (2004) finds that uncertainty avoidance is high in the Germanic country cluster. The societies rely heavily on social norms, rules, and procedures that prevent unpredictable events.
The Netherlands is a pragmatic culture, which means that there is a long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2010). Cultures with a long-term orientation are able to adapt traditions to new conditions. The future orientation dimension from GLOBE is in line with this outcome; people in this cluster are highly future oriented. Planning is highly central to the society (GLOBE, 2004).
The last dimension is only researched by Hofstede (2010). This is the dimension of indulgence, on which the Netherlands scores high. This implies that individuals realise their impulses and do not feel guilty for enjoying life.
When looking at China, power distance is found by Hofstede (2010) to be high. Inequalities between people are accepted in China. There is a formal leader, and employees are generally not consulted. The GLOBE study (2004) characterizes the Confucian Asian cluster as a medium power distance cluster.
China is a collectivist country, which means that people act in the interest of the group (Hofstede, 2010). This matches the GLOBE study (2004), in which both institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism are found to be high.
The society is success oriented and driven, which means the culture is masculine. Work is more important than family- and leisure activities (Hofstede, 2010). The societies in this cluster are to some extent assertive. There is a medium future orientation, as well as a medium humane orientation. There is some gender egalitarianism, but not much.
16 China is highly long- term oriented. It is a pragmatist society, which means that thrift is encouraged and investments in modern education are seen as a way to invest in the future. Truth is assumed to depend on situation and time (Hofstede, 2004). GLOBE (2004) outcomes do not completely match the Hofstede outcomes here, as in the GLOBE study Confucian Asia is found to be medium.
On the indulgence dimension, China has a very low score. Countries with low scores on this dimension are called restrained societies. There is a tendency to pessimism. Leisure time is secondary, and people believe that indulging themselves is wrong (Hofstede, 2010).
17 Figure 2: GLOBE national culture in the Germanic cluster (Source: House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.)
Now that we have looked at previous literature, we will move back to the determinants. The literature concerning the determinants of a specific leadership style is not complete. Inspired by Chin, Hambrick and Trevino (2013) political orientation will be considered as a determinant of leadership style.
18
National Culture as a determinant of Leadership Style
Leadership preferences differ globally, which shows from the GLOBE research. The GLOBE study did not only study leadership styles, it also studied national culture, organizational culture and the link between culture and leadership styles. The study includes over 60 countries that were divided into 9 clusters. In this section, the six leadership styles will be discussed in more detail and it includes the influence of national culture.
The first style is the Charismatic style. Charismatic leaders are able to motivate and inspire. They expect high performance from others, based on their own core values. This leadership style is highly accepted in all of the country clusters. The visions of charismatic leaders have a worldwide appeal.
Secondly, there is the team-oriented leadership style. Team building is central, and leaders focus on implementing a common purpose among team members. In the Confucian Asian cluster, of which China is part, the score is relatively high. This means that leaders that endorse this style are seen as highly effective. When looking at the Germanic country cluster that includes the Netherlands, it can be noted that team-oriented leadership is seen as effective here as well. This style appears to be effective globally. A third leadership style is participative leadership. When a leader is participative, this means that the manager involves others in decision-making. In the Confucian Asian cluster the score is quite low. Participative leadership is not expected. In the Germanic cluster we see a different outcome for this style: it scores relatively high.
Humane-oriented leadership is the fourth style. On the one hand, leaders endorsing this style are supportive and considerate, but compassion and kindness are also of importance. This style is considered positively in the Confucian Asian cluster, but not as positively as charismatic and team oriented leadership styles. In the Germanic cluster the score is slightly lower. Globally, there are quite some differences in the effectiveness of this style.
19
low score for this cluster. This means that both in China and in the Netherlands, the autonomous style is not perceived positively. In the rest of the world, the scores vary.
Lastly, there is the self-protective leadership style. Leaders focus on ensuring safety and security. This is done by status increase and by saving face. Although the score of Confucian Asia is low, it is still among the highest worldwide. The Germanic country cluster scores lower. In the figure below, the leadership styles per country cluster are summarized.
Figure 2: Leadership Preferences based on culture in the Confucian and Germanic country cluster.
(Source: Graph based on GLOBE (2004) data)
20
The charismatic and team-oriented styles will be left out of the analysis, as these styles are perceived positively in all of the country clusters. The participative style shows a large difference between the two countries of analysis. The Humane oriented style shows a small difference for the Germanic and the Confucian Asian cluster, but globally there are large differences. This counts as well for the autonomous style. The self-protective style is included, because one of the country clusters analyzed, the Confucian Asian cluster, has the highest score globally.
Now that the link between national culture and leadership style has been introduced, we can move back to the determinant in this study: Political orientation. First, attention will be paid to the political environment of the Netherlands and China, as it will influence the way in which and the extent to which people think about political and societal issues.
The political environment in China and the Netherlands
The two countries of analysis have a very different political environment. In China, there is only one party governing the country, the communist party of China. The party wishes to continue its monopoly and is intolerant towards people that question its power. However, analysts consider the system not to be rigidly hierarchical (Lawrence & Martin, 2012). According to Lawrence and Martin (2012) the communist party dominates both the state and the society in China. Four pillars support the communist party: the People’s Liberation Army, the Chinese people’s political Consultative Conference, the National People’s Congress and the State Council.
21 Figure 3: China’s most important political institutions (Source: CRS Research, accessed March 24-03 2016) In the Netherlands, there is a multiparty system in place, and Dutch citizens above 18 have voting rights. The Dutch society is pluralist, opinions are widespread. Because of this, one party never has the majority and in turn can never reign on its own (De Bruijn, 2002).
In this thesis, follow the argument by Chin et al. (2013) in stating that these political environments influence the way people look at societal issues: Political orientations.
Political Orientations
22
Molin (2014) write that it is based on religion, social- economic position, view on the society, ideas of the political parties and governmental policies (Schmeets & Molin, 2014).
Political scholars have generally found that political ideologies have considerable impacts on political attitudes and behaviour (Conover and Feltman, 1981). In general, it is believed that political ideologies can be measured as a dimension. Although this assumption seems obvious, its validity has not been proven (Conover and Feltman, 1981).
Although different scholars argue that the political environment may be too complex to be covered by only the conservatism- liberalism or the left wing – right wing dimension, these are still acceptable concepts to simplify political beliefs (Greenberg & Jonas, 2003). Although political views are multifaceted, a single liberal- conservative continuum still has predictive validity for voting behavior and opinions on a wide range of issues (Jost, 2006). The dichotomy is used by other scholars as well, for example by Chin et al. (2013). In one of his other papers, Jost (2003) writes that conservatism encompasses a resistance to change, and tolerance for inequality. The conservatism – liberalism scale is a key construct when looking at a person’s basic beliefs. (Schwarz, 1996; Feather, 1979). Political attitudes are influenced by personality traits (Hirsch et al., 2010). Previous research states that political orientation is related to personality traits. Specifically, that conservatism is positively related to the conscientiousness dimension of the big 5 personality traits. The ‘big 5 personality traits’ consist of five dimensions that together describe the personality of individuals. Conscientiousness is the degree to which individuals like to plan everything and act dutifully. Conscientious people like to be prepared, prefer to follow schedules and enjoy order. So it has been found that conservative individuals are more likely to appreciate these elements, which is in line with the assumption that conservatives are resistant to change. (Hirsch et al, 2010).
23
no absolute right or wrong, and that criminals should receive help rather than punishment (Goldberg, 1999).
Conservatism can be seen as a ‘positional ideology’, and is more pessimistically oriented towards human nature. There is an assumption that people act selfish, and can never be perfect. Constraints from authorities are required. Conservatives favor ideas that are familiar and predictable (Jost et al, 2008; McCrae, 1996). Conservatism is based on faith in one religion, the belief that too much tax money goes to support artists that laws should be strictly enforced, that we cuddle criminals too much and that we should be tough on crime. Conservatives like to stand during the national anthem (Goldberg, 1999). Jost, Glaser, Solloway and Kruglanski (2003) found that the two most important aspects of conservatism are acceptance of inequality and reluctance to change.
Hypothesis building
Now that all of the concepts have been introduced, we can move on to the expected relationships between the countries. The main argument of the paper is that political orientations and leadership styles are related. Now theory will be provided to support these predictions and hypotheses will be formed.
In the Netherlands, the multiple party-system stimulates discussion. Debates are shown on TV prior to elections, and this encourages people to think about their opinions and define what they stand for. In China, the one party political system implies that people do not have a choice, which will probably decrease the discussion.
Discussion leads to individuals being exposed to different opinions. Therefore, it is assumed that:
The range of political orientations among Dutch future leaders is larger than the range of political orientations among Chinese future leaders.
In previous sections both the GLOBE leadership styles and the constructs underlying political conservatism and liberalism are described. In forming the following set of hypotheses the previously mentioned concepts were linked to each other.
24
conservatives believe that individuals act selfishly, so in their own interest. This would fit with a self-protective style.
H1. Future leaders with a politically conservative ideology are more likely to have a self-protective style than future leaders with a politically liberal ideology As written in the section regarding political orientation, liberals are open to new ideas and experiences personally and politically. This fits with a participative leadership style, as in this style a leader consults others in making a decision (GLOBE, 2004). When others are involved in decision-making than just a leader, there is a higher probability that new ideas are posed.
H2. Future leaders with a politically liberal ideology are more likely to have a participative style than future leaders with a politically conservative ideology
Conservatives believe people act selfish, and can never be perfect (Jost et al., 2008). I argue that this is related to an autonomous style, because the autonomous style implies that leaders are individualistic and independent. By not relying on others, leaders make sure they follow their own interests, and are not steered in the direction of others with selfish interests.
H3. Future leaders with a politically conservative ideology are more likely to have an autonomous style than future leaders with a liberal ideology
The humane oriented leadership style focuses on being modest, generous and compassionate. This fits with a liberal orientation. As stated in the previous section, liberals believe that criminals should receive help rather than punishment. This can be interpreted as being compassionate. Therefore, the last hypothesis is:
25
Methods
Quantitative Research using factor analysis and regression analysis
The research was executed at the individual level. Students of the faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen were included in the sample. I assume that students in academic education in the field of economics and business represent future leaders in the field. A quantitative method was chosen, because scales were present in the literature that measure the variables that were used in the thesis and many students could be approached. The sample included both Dutch and Chinese students. A survey, containing demographic questions, questions regarding political orientation and questions about leadership style was distributed. The survey was be available both online, using Qualtrics, and offline, using a printed version of the Qualtrics survey, to facilitate distribution. Due to time constraints, the snowball method was used as the sampling method. A total of 84 responses were recorded, of which 52 respondents were Dutch, and 32 were Chinese. The research was executed at one point in time, which makes it a cross-sectional study (Mann, 2003). The research is of a deductive nature, as the plan was to test the hypotheses developed earlier.
Variables
Leadership style: The dependent variable is Leadership Style. Selected questions
from the GLOBE questionnaire were used regarding the participative, humane-oriented, autonomous and the self-protective style. The questions state a leader’s behavior followed by a short description of this behavior, after which respondents indicate to what extent they think this behavior impedes or contributes to good leadership. Again, a 7-point Likert scale was used to measure attitudes of the respondents.
Political Orientation: The independent variable is Political Orientation. Political
26
that we should be tough on crime (-), like to stand during the national anthem (-). The items concerning party choice will be eliminated, as Chinese citizens do not have the possibility to vote. A Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 was used, where 1 indicates that a respondent completely disagrees with a statement and 7 means that a respondent completely agrees with a statement. In SPSS the items displayed with a (–) were recoded to become positive, such that high scores relate to liberalism and low scores reflect a conservative orientation.
Control Variables
To measure the control variables a nominal or interval scale was used depending on the control variable.
Age: The research will be controlled for the age of the participants. Here an
interval scale can be used.
Gender: The research will be controlled by the gender of the participants. Here a
nominal scale can be used where participants distinguish two categories: male and female. A dummy variable is created, where a score of 1 stands for a male participant. Year of study: The third control variable is the year in which the participants are in their studies. Here the total number of years at the faculty of economics and business will be used. This is an interval type scale. Nationality: The last control variable is nationality. In this research, Chinese and Dutch individuals will be approached. In order to be able to say with certainty that an individual is Chinese or Dutch, multiple questions will be asked relating to nationality. In this research an individual will be considered Dutch/Chinese when Dutch/Chinese is their mother tongue and if they have the Dutch/ Chinese nationality. For these variables a dummy is created where a value of 1 equals a Chinese participant.
Descriptive statistics
27
As this is a local language within the Netherlands, it will not have any implications for the research. These respondents are therefore placed into the category with Dutch as their mother tongue. Because of this match, we can continue with one of these control variables. The age of respondents varies from 19 to 28, which matches the expectations of a student sample. All students started at the university of Groningen between 2010 and 2016. To make sure that the student sample represents potential future leaders the survey asked whether respondents currently have leadership ambitions. 77,4% of the respondents indicated that they probably or definitely have leadership ambitions. Only 8,4 % indicates that they probably or definitely do not have leadership ambitions. 56% of respondents is female, 44% is male. There were never less than 83 responses per question, so the number of missing values is small.
Statistical Analysis
In order to group the variables that resulted from each question, a factor analysis was conducted for both political orientation and leadership style. In this way, the questions can be grouped into categories that reflect a variable, for example liberalism or conservatism. All factors displayed have an eigenvalue >1 Unfortunately, the results of the factor analysis show a scattered view: the factors do not display the variables as intended in the scales. Below, the outcomes of the rotated factor analysis for the political orientation questions are shown. Table 1: Factor Analysis Political Orientation
28
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring, Rotation Method:Varimax with Kaiser normalization
From the analysis table it can be noted that there are three factors. Total variance explained is 33,9%. According to the theory, one factor was expected as all of the indicators were used to measure the liberalism scale. When 0,300 is taken as the threshold as suggested by (Field, 2013). It means that the first factor includes ‘I believe in one true religion’ and ‘I like to stand during the national anthem’. The second factor includes three variables, all based on attitudes to crime. ‘I believe criminals should receive help rather than punishment’, ‘I believe we coddle criminals too much’ and ‘I believe we should be tough on crime’ are included in this second factor. Then there is a last factor, which is a single item factor. This factor consists of the variable ‘I believe too much tax money goes to support artists. Reasons underlying this unexpected distributions will be discussed in the discussion section.
29 Compassionate 0,008 0,242 -0,075 -0,005 0,073 0,443 0,317 0,086 0,158 Individually Oriented 0,056 0,126 0,108 -0,109 0,495 0,017 -0,014 0,092 -0,054 Indirect 0,180 0,096 0,142 -0,340 0,000 0,295 0,043 -0,038 -0,167 Self Effacing -0,026 0,187 -0,050 0,095 -0,255 0,504 -0,138 -0,285 0,396 Procedural 0,068 -0,045 0,127 0,807 -0,144 -0,048 0,118 -0,015 -0,136 Non Participative 0,174 -0,178 0,417 -0,433 0,171 0,027 0,017 0,057 -0,136 Patience -0,280 0,046 0,062 0,461 0,139 0,096 -0,121 0,062 0,417 Domineering 0,731 0,097 0,090 0,033 0,059 -0,094 -0,113 0,116 -0,054 Elitist 0,194 0,003 0,495 0,150 0,190 0,011 0,107 0,164 -0,243 Avoids Negatives 0,388 0,445 0,151 0,034 0,012 0,297 -0,208 0,034 -0,158 Ruler 0,211 0,032 0,337 -0,058 -0,002 -0,024 -0,005 0,740 0,060 Dictatorial 0,594 0,124 0,366 -0,286 0,098 0,062 0,011 0,175 0,038 Individualistic 0,604 -0,119 0,162 -0,132 0,195 0,012 0,374 0,135 0,023 Extraction Method:Principal Axis Factoring, Rotation Method:Varimax with Kaiser normalization By these nine factors, 54, 32% of variance is explained. When keeping the threshold of 0,300, the outcomes are summarized in the figure below. Table 3 : Factor Attributes Leadership Styles When looking at the leadership styles as researched by GLOBE (2004), it can be noted that these attributes do not match the ones found in this study. The attributes that originally belong to the GLOBE leadership styles are summarized below
Table 4 : Attributes GLOBE
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Factor 9
Bossyrecode Evasive Self Interested Generous Independent Generous Independent Generous Patience
Domineeringrecode Autonomous Asoicial Procedural Self Interested Modest Unique Rulerreverse Calm
Dictatorialrecode Independent Non Participative Patience Individually Oriented Compassionate Compassionate Self Effacing
Individualistic Avoids neg Rulerreverse Self effacing Self Effacing
30 *Items in Italics are reverse coded Some of the factors seem to have some overlap with the GLOBE leadership styles. The third factor includes self-interested, asocial and non-participative, but it also includes ruler (reverse coded). Then, factors 4,7 and 9 seem to be related to some extent to the humane oriented style, though they do not group together under a single label. Individualistic and independent are present in factor 7, which are also present in the autonomous leadership style, however these are only half of the attributes of this factor. Factor 1 includes some attributes that the participative style covers as well, but individualistic also falls under this category. Factor 2 and 5 contain attributes that belong to the self-protective and the autonomous style. Factor 8 combines an attribute from the humane oriented style with the participative style. All in all, the results do not show the clear leadership styles as defined by GLOBE (2004). This can be due to several factors, which will be explained in further detail in the discussion section. Because the factors do not have a clear meaning, a regression analysis as planned in the first place will not contribute to the research. Therefore, we can only check the first assumption. Further means between the two groups will be compared and the correlation table will be analyzed in order to highlight extraordinary findings.
31 Therefore, it cannot automatically be assumed that there is more variation in political orientation in the Netherlands than in China. Table 5 : Group Statistics Political Orientation N Mean Std. Dev. To what extent do you agree with the following statements I believe there is an absolute right or wrong China 32 3,34 1,26 Netherlands 52 3,42 1,377 I believe criminals should get help rather than punishment China 32 3,28 1,464 Netherlands 52 3,23 1,366 I believe in one true religion China 32 2,91 1,573 Netherlands 52 1,9 1,487 I believe that too much tax money goes to support artists China 32 3,06 1,134 Netherlands 52 4 1,495 I believe that laws should be strictly enforced China 32 5,41 1,214 Netherlands 52 4,62 1,255 I believe we coddle criminals too much China 32 3,81 1,03 Netherlands 52 4,58 1,348 I believe we should be tough on crime China 32 5,34 1,035 Netherlands 52 5,54 0,917 I like to stand during the national anthem China 32 4,75 1,391 Netherlands 52 4,13 1,681
32 Table 6: Independent samples t-test Political Orientation Levene's test for Equality of Variances To what extent do you agree with the following statements? F Sig. t df I believe there is an absolute right or wrong 1,709 0,195 -0,265 82 I believe criminals should receive help rather than punishment 0,969 0,328 0,16 82 I believe in one true religion 1,943 0,167 2,929 81 I believe that too much taks money goes to support artists 0,859 0,357 -3,046 82 I believe that laws should be strictly enforced 0,549 0,461 2,817 82 I believe we coddle criminals too much 3,02 0,086 -2,749 82 I believe we should be tough on crime 0,823 0,367 -0,899 82 I like to stand during the national anthem 2,374 0,127 1,736 82 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference To what extent do you agree with th following statements? Sig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. Er. differ
ence lower upper I believe there is an absolute right or wrong 0,792 -0,079 0,3 -0,676 0,517 I believe criminals should receive help rather than punishment 0,873 0,05 0,316 -0,577 0,678 I believe in one true religion 0,004 1,004 0,343 0,322 1,686 I believe that too much taks money goes to support artists 0,003 -0,938 0,308 -1,55 -0,325 I believe that laws should be strictly enforced 0,006 0,791 0,281 0,232 1,349 I believe we coddle criminals too much 0,007 -0,764 0,278 -1,318 -0,211 I believe we should be tough on crime 0,371 -0,195 0,217 -0,625 0,236 I like to stand during the national anthem 0,086 0,615 0,354 -0,09 1,32
Then, when looking at leadership ambitions (table 7), there is no significant difference between Chinese and Dutch students. The mean score for the Dutch sample is slightly higher than for the Chinese sample, respectively 5,98 and 5,88. Both of these scores are relatively high, as the mean is taken from a 1 to 7 Likert type scale. From the independent samples t-test it shows that the means are not significantly different. The variances are significantly different, which means the bottom row of the table is relevant.
33 Table 8 : Independent samples t-test Levene's test for Equality of Variances 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Do you have leadership ambitions? F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. Error difference Lower Upper Non Equal Var -0,579 79,229 0,564 -0,106 0,183 -0,469 0,258
Because of the results of the factor analysis it is not possible to speak of ‘leadership styles’ in this study, at least not as intended using the GLOBE scales. However, we can look at the leadership attributes that were directly presented to respondents of the survey and the differences between Chinese and Dutch respondents. For leadership attributes, the standard deviation in the Netherlands is higher than the standard deviation in China for 9 of the 24 cases. Clearly, it is not true that there is more variation in leadership styles in the Netherlands than in China. When looking at the independent samples t-test for these variables, there are some attributes for which the means for the Chinese and the Dutch sample differ significantly, namely bossy, independent, self-interested, autocratic, asocial, indirect, procedural, elitist, avoids negatives and dictatorial. Chinese respondents think to a significantly greater extent that bossy, independent, asocial, indirect, procedural, elitist, avoiding negatives, dictatorial and self-interested as attributes contribute to a good leadership style. It is the other way around for autocratic as an attribute. Dutch respondents think to a greater extent that being autocratic as a leader contributes to a good leadership style. In the table 9 the highest standard deviation per question is marked.
N Mean Std Deviation Std. Error Mean Do you have leadership ambitions? China 32 5,88 0,554 0,098
34
Table 9 : Group Statistics Leadership Styles
N Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean
35
Discussion and Conclusions
Discussion
The aim of this study was to compare Chinese and Dutch future leaders while examining the link between political orientation and leadership style. A distinction was made between politically liberal and politically conservative orientations. Regarding leadership styles, behavioral leadership styles were explored, and specifically the GLOBE leadership styles were selected for this research.
As written before, unfortunately the factor analyses do not show the factors as expected. This causes a major problem for hypotheses testing. In this section, attention will be paid to the possible reasons underlying this unexpected outcome. The main problem in the statistical analysis is due to the scales utilized: the factor analysis of both of the scales, political and leadership style, do not lead to the expected results. This means that the relation between political orientation and leadership style cannot be tested in this study. If the mean scores of the concepts as expected would be used, the outcomes would not be meaningful, as the constructs are perceived differently by the respondents of the survey. Therefore, no regression analyses were conducted. There can be several reasons that offer explanatory value in why the scale leads to different factors. This section will elaborate on these reasons.
36
their sample (Cronbach alpha= 0.86). The samples that they used consisted of respectively 481 and 146 members. These samples are both larger than the sample in this study, consisting of 84 participants. The respondents were more heterogeneous, as the age categories are broader. In the Hirsch et al. (2010) studies, the age ranges from 18 to 85. The student sample used in this study may affect the usability of the scales. Secondly, it can be noted that the scale is focused on American values. These values may differ globally and therefore the factors resulting from the factor analysis may be different when the sample consists of Chinese and Dutch respondents. Hirsch et al. (2010) made use of a sample consisting of American and Canadian citizens. Some or all of the scale items may be specific for the American society. The scale could also have been differently relevant for the two groups used in this study. For example, it could be that Dutch students have discussed more about the issues included in the political scale because they have voted at government elections. For Chinese students this is not the case because of the political system. This could mean that Chinese students did form opinions already about their opinions about the issues addressed in the survey. Also, Participants were approached and asked to fill in the questionnaire on a voluntary basis. The possibility exists that they were not genuinely interested in participating. In that case, it could be that participants randomly answered the questions. Although it is difficult to find out, one can look to the answers given in the SPSS data and look for suspicious responses (e.g. only answering with a value of 4). When looking at the data gathered in this thesis, one respondent only answered with the values 3 and 4, with very little exceptions. However, if this is only the case for one participant, it is unlikely that this affects the entire research. All in all, there is more than one reason that could explain the unexpected outcomes of the scale and it will remain unclear which one of these carries the most weight.
37
that variety in political orientation is greater for Dutch respondents more often than for Chinese respondents, but the difference is not large and the assumption could not be supported.
Differences between the two samples were also looked at for leadership styles, but here Chinese respondents even had a larger standard deviation most of the times, Suggesting that there exists a larger variation in leadership style preferences among the Chinese students in the sample than the Dutch. Also for this aspect, several reasons can explain the outcomes.
Firstly, the Chinese students included in the sample made the choice to study abroad in a Western country. This already indicates that they are internationally oriented, and it can also influence their view of the world, which is important for political orientation. It can also influence their preference for leadership attributes. In China, the leadership styles are different than in the Netherlands based on culture (GLOBE, 2004). Because the Chinese students study in the Netherlands, they have been exposed to leadership styles that are common in the Netherlands too. They have actually, with a large probability, been exposed to more leadership styles than the students from the Dutch sample, so that could explain the large standard variation for leadership styles in the Chinese sample.
38
Thirdly, the political orientation of people is subject to change; participants may consider themselves liberal now, but conservative in 5 to 10 years from now. It is unclear if their leadership style will take on the same pattern of change. Lastly, the students were presented a survey. Leadership styles are described in words in the survey and moreover in a language that is not the native language of either Chinese or Dutch students. There may be misunderstandings as to what exactly is meant with a certain attribute of leadership. Here differences between Chinese and Dutch students may also exist in the level of English. A suggestion for further research would be to translate the survey into the native language of participants. It would be even better to conduct an experiment or observe an actual situation in which a leadership attribute is demonstrated and let participants rate that attribute afterwards. Future research is also needed for additional reasons.
This study was unable to identify the relation between political orientation and leadership styles, due to unfitting scales. Future studies could look into these scales and modify them to be internationally valid. Items that are valid in international contexts, or at least in diverse contexts should be considered.
Secondly, future research could look at the relation between political orientation and leadership styles while using a sample of current leaders, and the findings could be compared findings for future leaders.
Thirdly, this research is an attempt to fill the gap in the literature of the influence of political orientations on management concepts. There may be more concepts in the field of business strategy in which the influence of political orientation has not been tested yet.
Although the hypotheses could not be tested, still some valuable insights can be gathered from the collected data, which will be summarized in the conclusion section. Conclusion
39
for Chinese future leaders and Dutch future leaders. The sample consisted of 84 students of the University of Groningen, of which 32 were Chinese and 52 were Dutch.
The dependent variable, Leadership Styles, was based on the GLOBE study (2010). The GLOBE study provided four leadership styles used in the analysis: the self-protective, participative, autonomous and humane-oriented style. The GLOBE researchers provided the survey elements that were used for this study. It was assumed that there would be more variation in leadership styles in the Netherlands than in China. Based on the descriptive statistics, this assumption did not hold.
The independent variable, Political Orientation, was measured using a conservatism-liberalism scale developed by Goldberg (1999).
Due to several possible reasons, the factor analyses for the political orientation and leadership style variables did not match the expectations based on the literature. Therefore, regression analysis could not be used in order to obtain insight in the relation. However, it was possible to look at descriptive statistics and discover differences between the Dutch and Chinese respondents.
In these descriptive statistics we find that when looking at leadership ambitions there is no significant difference between Chinese and Dutch students. The mean score for the Dutch sample is slightly higher than for the Chinese sample, 5,98 and 5,88 respectively. Both of these scores are relatively high, when considering that the mean is taken from a 1 to 7 Likert type scale. This means that Chinese and Dutch students in this sample were approximately equally likely to have leadership ambitions.
40
41
References
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153–167.
Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives.Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Bidwell, A. C. (1962). Managerial grid. Advanced
Management-Office Executive.
Beck, Brenda E.F. & Larry E Moore. 1985. Linking the host culture to organizational variables. In P.J. Frost et al., Organizational culture, 335-54. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Bruno, L. F., & Lay, E. G. (2008). Personal values and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 61(6), 678-683. de Bruijn, J. (2002). Het kostte Nederland 2291 dagen formeren. Trouw Bryman, Alan, and Emma Bell. Business research methods. Oxford university press, 2015. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political Ideologies of CEOs The Influence of Executives’ Values on Corporate Social Responsibility. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197-232.
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 617-645.
DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality
42
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 233.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 569. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 781-797. Feather, N. T. (1979). Value correlates of conservatism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1617. Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337-358.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.Advances in
experimental social psychology, 1(1), 149-190.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
43
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655-664.
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation, analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
Hofstede G. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1339–1346
Hofstede G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 882–896.
Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of Business ethics, 43(4), 263-273.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: an introduction. Applied
Psychology, 50(4), 489-505.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. The academy of
44
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 765.
Lawrence, S., & Martin, M. F. (2012). Understanding China's political system. Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292-300. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 323. Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategic formulation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160–197.
Montanari, J. R. (1978). Managerial discretion: An expanded model of organization choice. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 231-241.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, P. C. Q. T. (2011). Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review,51(6), 755-786.
Schmeets, J. J. G., & Molin, E. J. E. (2014). Links-rechts zelfplaatsing en partijkeuze: een verklaringsmodel. Mens en Maatschappij, 67(1), 45-60.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and
applications. Comparative sociology, 5(2), 137-182.
Silva, A. (2009). What Determines Leadership Style?. Honors Projects in History and
Social Sciences, 6.
45
Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting hofstede model and globe model: which way to go for cross-cultural research?. International journal of business and management, 6(5), 93. Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 915-921.
St. Angelo, D., & Dyson, J. W. (1968). Personality and political orientation.Midwest
Journal of Political Science, 202-223.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of psychology, 25(1), 35-71.
Schwartz, S. (2013, May). Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying. In The psychology of
values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8). Psychology Press.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations.
46
Appendix 1 : Survey
47
48
