Cross- cultural Communication This page intentionally left blank

Leadership styles
Rugman and Collinson list leadership styles as: ‘Ranging from individual-
oriented, directive, autocratic, top- down, or authoritarian, to group- oriented, 
participative, democratic, bottom- up, or egalitarian’ (Rugman and Collinson, 
2006: 142).
In the globalized economy, cultural groupings may in fact exhibit both styles 
of leadership, but most tend to reflect one particularly predominant style. 
Potential conflict can occur when two cultures with different leadership 
styles are working together, as each of the two workforces is used to its own 
cultural leadership style. For example, a culture with high- power distance, 
for example, Spain, with individualistic and assertive characteristics, runs 
the risk of being considered somewhat aggressive and too directive by those 
cultures with low- power distance, such as Denmark.
Leadership style is defined by Mullins as: ‘The way in which the func-
tions of leadership are carried out, the way in which the manager typically 
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

---

130 Cross-Cultural Communication
behaves towards members of the group’ (Mullins, 2005: 291). Mullins’ three 
styles of leadership can be summarized as follows:
The authoritarian or autocratic style: this is where the manager holds all 
the power, including policy and decision making. All action within the 
organization emanates from the manager.
The democratic style: here the emphasis is on the group as a whole, where 
members should participate in policy and decision making. The leader-
ship functions are shared within the group, with the leader being more 
part of the team.
The laissez- faire style: here the manager tends to be more of an expert 
observer who stands back and allows members a high degree of freedom 
to act, while exercising a supportive and guidance role as required.
The second and third styles above challenge the old concept that superiors 
have the ultimate right to exercise power over their inferiors. This attitude 
has now been replaced in Western business style by the belief that although 
individuals may be unequal in their performance and ability, all have the 
right to express freely their views and to contribute to the decisions that 
affect both them personally and the business itself. In this context, leaders 
are accepted for as long as they continue to support the interests of those 
they represent, that is, the workforce, shareholders, investors and the wider 
community.
Schneider and Barsoux (2003) consider that, particularly in North America 
and Western Europe, with the move towards more participative manage-
ment and individual empowerment, the role of leadership is changing, with 
the increasing emphasis on acting as a ‘facilitator’ or as a ‘coach’ rather than 
exercising direct control. This development is much less obvious in cultures 
where power is still retained at the top, individual initiative is less encour-
aged and workers are more prepared to defer to the authority of their leaders 
(Schneider and Barsoux, 2003: 111–12).
We have seen in Chapter 3 how Lewis (2011) groups cultures into three 
main clusters:
 linear- active: task- oriented, highly organized planning, do one thing at a 
time, monochronic (examples: Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian 
cultures);
 multi- active: people- oriented, emphasis on spoken word, flexible (examples: 
Southern Europeans and Arabs);
reactive: introverted, good listener, respect for status, age and authority 
(examples: Japanese, Chinese and South Korean cultures).
Lewis deduces from the above main groups that the characteristics of 
managers in each will display certain cultural attributes. In summary, these 
are as follows:
•