Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values of ...

ARTICLES

Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values of .. Managers and Employees of Manufacturing Enterprises in Post-Communist Countries Alexander Ardichvili

'

^^ ,

This !f-

00 in

fN

in

5b S

o

00

Es

i n CO \O CO

U

• a t:;

c '—1

o E"

X

0 X O O CO « X in rs ^01 —' t~- in -^

c o a.

"^

aj

OS

fN r^ O O — lO rs| X Ol in ^ O

E

c

Rat

OJ

flj

VI

1

CO C^

CL

O O

a

O —'

X •+

O

C 0

p o o

g

CL •ft

«

rN rN O

Size

!> "B. E

CO i n

O

rN vo

Q rN

5b 5 OS u J=

t2 E:

T

u

UJ

a

"^ C O O IU •n OO

•r CO X O Ov ^H Ov O

O —

O

CO

'J-

—>

1-H

a

s

X

fO rj)

u •3

! •

E UJ

untry

Total:

Cl.

o o o o o in (N r~oo I— in o

o .2

< w

.o w 5b C

Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values

373

The coauthor of MLQ5x, Bruce Avolio, checked the back translation of the leadership section of the survey instrument for accuracy. In several cases, discrepancies in the use of terminology or in the interpretation of specific terms were detected and eliminated after several iterations of revisions. A pilot survey was conducted with a sample of one hundred employees of an experimental plant of the University of Moscow to determine the internal consistency of the instrument and to identify potential problems with the interpretation of tenns and concepts. The results of the pilot have pointed out the need for minor corrections in the instrument's wording and layout but did not call for major changes. The survey instruments were distributed to managers and employees during regular companywide employee meetings. Because earlier survey studies in Russia have demonstrated extremely low response rales on mail surveys (Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Gasparishvili, 1998), completed instruments were collected by CSR representatives in person. Data Analysis. The scores for leadership styles and cultural values were calculated using the formulas provided by the test authors. Test statistics for the leadership scales are on a Liken scale from 0 (low) to 4 (high). The scales for the culture dimensions were calculated by weighing specific item means and adding constants to arrive at scales ranging from 1 (low) to 100 (high). This allows for comparisons with previously published country scores (Hofstede, 1984; Aycan and others, 2000). Measures of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were assessed for the overall sample and by country. For leadership scales, they ranged from a = 69 to a = 88, ihus meeting the generally expected ranges and also being consistent with ihe earlier findings on these scales (Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1995), The internal reliability for five of the cultural dimensions scales was in the acceptable range for the overall sample and by counir); bui it was low for UA! and PDl; Lhese dimensions were omitted from the subsequent analysis. To reduce possible bias introduced by unequal variances in several study variables, the sample sizes were equalized by country by selecting a random sample from the pooled Russian sample, thus reducing the number of Russian participants from 1,216 to 400 and making this sample comparable lo ihe samples from ihe other three countries. Further, because country differences were found in the levels of some demographic variables (age, gender, education), and because these variables had been found earlier to have an effect on leadership and work culture (Kuchinkc, 1999; Aycan, Sinha, and Kanungo, 1999), they were statisiically controlled for in tests of hypotheses. Multivariate tests of variance (MANCOVA) were conducted for leadership styles by coumry and by job category, and for cultural values by countrj' and job category, with demographic variables as covariates. The MANCOVA results were significant for leadership styles by country but not by job category. The culture variable results were significant by country and by job category Because significant results were found in the MANCOVA test, the next step

374

Ardichvili

was to conduct univariate F-tests (ANCOVA) to identify differences in leadership styles and cultural value dimensions between countries and job categories. Finally, mulliple regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of differences in cultural value dimensions on leadership styles. Results

1

The ANCOVA results by country were significant for all five cultural value dimensions: IND, MAS. LTO, FTl, and PTl (see Table 3), On all leadership dimensions, results were significant by country. Comparisons by job category produced significant results for two variables only: IND and MAS, with MAS showing only a moderate significance level (see Table 4), To evaluate the proportion of total population variance attributable to variation among countries (that is, explained variance), the index of effect size (fl^) is also reported, A "small" effect size is .01; a "medium" effect size is .06; a "large" effect size is .15 and greater (Cohen, 1977). PTl shows ihe largest effect size among the cultural value dimensions, followed by FTI; MAS and LTO were in the low-to-medium range (see Table 3). Among the leadership dimensions, IC and CR were in the medium range, with IM and IS following closely. '

Table 3. Country Scores on Leadership and Culture Variables and ANCOVA Results Vanabk-

Kyrg/Z Rep

F 0,1575)

Q7

61 105

13.850 24,420

-017 ,110

1 I

69 120 108

61 U7 lU

60 108 105

32,571 29.052 55.003

.039 ,081 ,121

1 I 1

2.3

2.8

2,6

2,4

54.828

.015

.785

2.3

2,9

2,7

2,5

51.470

.061

1

2.6

3-1

2.7

2.8

45.295

.054

1

2.4

2.8

2,8

2.7

36,308

.044

1

2,8

3,0

2,8

2,6

11,773

,065

1

2.3

2,3

2,5

2,3

,012

.998

Russia

Georgia

Kazakhstan

63 102

41 151

85 102 93

Power

Cultural Value Dimensions

Individualism (tND) Masculinity (MAS) Long-Term Ortenialion (LTO) Fataiism (FTI) Patemaitsm (PTl) Leadership Dimensions Charisma (CHA) Individual Consideration Inspiraiional MDiivalion (IM) lntellcclual Stimulation (IS) Contingent Reward (CR) Managemeni by Excepiion (ME)

*p < ,01; for all other variables, |J < ,001

56

9,541 •

Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values Table 4. Culture by Job Category: Scores and ANCOVA Results (Significant Variables Only) Dimension

Individualism Masculinity

Managers

Production Employees

70 lOi

53 114

F

34,001 6.590*

O*'

Power

0.01 0,04

1 ,728

The results with regard to culture indicate that Hypolhesis 1 was partially confirmed: there were significant differences among the four countries on several dimensions {see Table 3). At the same lime, not all scores for Russia were as predicted in the earlier research, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the Kyrgyz Republic scored higher, and Georgia scored lower on the IND scores. However, the (n^) was low, and the scores ranged from 41 for Georgia to 63 for Russia. On the MAS dimension, Lhe country scores for all four countries were on the high end of the scale when compared to Hofstedes scores for other countries. Georgia scored the highest, with a score of 151. On LTO, Russia scored the highest (85). with the other three countries slightly above the mid-point on Hofstede's scales. In addition, a medium-level (ft^) indicates significant country differences on this dimension. Regarding PTl, all four countries scored high. with the Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan, and Georgia scoring higher ihan Russia. On this dimension, there were significant countr>' differences, as evidenced by (H^). Finally, all four countries scored high on FTI. with Russia scoring the lowest of the four countries and Georgia the highest. The leadership dimensions hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) was confirmed: there were significant differences in leadership styles among managers of the four countries, and these differences were observed on all dimensions of the transformational-transaction a I leadership styles model (see Table 3). Comparisons between countries show that Georgian managers scored the highest on all dimensions but not on Management by Exception (ME)—a dimension that had, in general, the lowest scores for all four countries, Russian managers appeared to be relying more on CR than on any other methods, having in general rather low scores on most of the transformational leadership dimensions (with the exception of IM), A test of Hypothesis 3, regarding the relationship between cultural value dimensions and leadership styles, was conducted using a series of stepwise multiple regressions, wilh six leadership dimensions as dependent variables and five cultural value dimensions as independent variables. The results ot this analysis show that for all six leadership dimensions, R^ scores were rather low (ranging from 0.05 to 0.13), which suggests that variations in cultural dimensions account for only a modest level of variance in each leadership style (see Table 5). Fatalism emerged as the most significant predictor of all dimensions of transformational leadership and of the CR dimension, but not of ME.

Ardichvili Table 5. Multiple Regression Analysis Results for Four

Countries

(Best Fit Models) Variable

B

SEB

T

liulividual Consideration (R^= .12; adjusted R^• = . U 9 ; F -= 65.332) Fatalism .296 ,025 12,003 Long-Term Orientation -3,43E-03 ,000 -9.810 Individualism -1,60E-03 .000 -5.020 Palemalism -8,65E-02 .025 -3.464 Masc:ulinity 6,272H-04 .000 3,450 Inspirational Motivation (R^==0.98: adjusted R ^ = ,096; F = 64,612) Fatalism ,223 ,021 10,621 Long-Term Orientation -2,99E-03 .000 -10,038 Paternalism -8,57E-02 .021 -3.941 Individualism -9.26E-04 ,000 -3.418 Intellectual Stimulation (R^ =,137; adjusted R^ = .135; F == 94,472) Fatalism ,294 ,021 13,783 Long-Term Orientation -3,44E-03 .000 -11.398 Paternalism -,104 ,022 -4.846 Individualism -7.73E-04 ,000 -2.815 Chamma (R^ = .129; adjusted R^ = ,128; F = 88.665) Fatal i.sm ,220 .018 12,356 Long-Term Orientation -2,7OE-O3 .000 -10.680 Individualism -7,97E-04 .000 -3.465 Paternalism -3.84E-02 .018 -2,161 Contingent Reward (R^ = .071; adjusted R^ -0.70; F = 45,629) Fatalism ,237 .019 12,211 Paternalism -9.18E-02 ,020 -4,676 Individualism -7.18E-04 .000 -2,817 Long-Term Orientaiion -7.81E-04 ,000 -2,836 Managemeni by Exception {R^ = 0,53; adjusted R^ = ,051; J= = 45,629) Paternalism 8,43E-02 .014 5,954 Masculinity -4,08E-04 ,000 -3.943 Long-Term Orientation -6.70E-04 .000 -3,373 Fatalism 4.495E-02 .014 3,202

S(,/3 279*** -.190'** -,081** ,066** .23O*** -,197*** -.093*" -.067*' ,317*** -,219**" -,054'* ,285*** -.206*'* -.067'*' -.050* ,291*** -,112*** -.057** -.056** ,144*"* -,079*"* -.068*'•

*p< ,001; •*/)< 01; •••p< ,05

The four iransfomiational leadership dimensions and CR had similar sets of predictors: FTI was lhe highest, followed by PTl and LTO. ME displayed a different paLtern: the highest predictor was PTl, followed by MAS. To determine how the relationships between the leadership dimensions and cukural value dimensions differed across countries, separate multiple regression tests were conducted for each country (see Table 6). These results show that FTI was a main predictor for most of the leadership dimensions in Kazakhstan, Georgia, and lhe Kyrgyz Republic, but not in Russia. In Russia, the main predictor of transformational leadership behavior was LTO. followed by FTI, Another Finding was that in Russia and Georgia, cultural dimensions explained


377

Table 6. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Results for Individual Countries: The Best Predietor Variable for Each Dimension Kyrgyz Variable Individual Consideration Inspiraiiona! Moiivaiion Iniellectual Stimulation Charisma Contingent Reward Managemeni by Exception

Russia

Ceorâ

Kazakhsian

Republic

LTO LTO LTO

FT! FTI FTI FTI FTI PTl

FTI LTO FTI FTI FTI FTI

FTI FTI FTI FTI FTI FTI

tTO FTI PTl

•p< .00!

a higher percentage of variance in each of the leadership styles (Rh ranging from .13 to .21) than in Kyrgyz and lhe Kazakh Republic (from .03 to .08).

Discussion The purpose of this research was to identify cultural value dimensions and leadership styles of managers and employees in post-Communist countries, and to examine the influence of cultural value dimensions on leadership styles. Of five dimensions, MAS and PTl yielded the largest differences among countries. There was a high level of MAS for all four countries, with Georgia scoring the highest, not only among these four countries but compared to any other country with available scores on the dimensions developed by Hofstede (1984, 1997). All four countries were high on FTI and PTl. One possible explanation of high levels of FTI could be a unique combination of historical legacies and recent experiences, Helplessness in controlling outcomes during the Communist regime and again during the prolonged economic crisis of the last ten years could have increased fatalism in all countries of the former Soviet Union. LTO was high for Russia, lower for Georgia, and still lower for Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The difference in LTO levels could suggest thai ihis dimension is deeply rooted in national cultures and is not malleable. Had the Communist party influence during the last seventy years left a lasting impact on cukural values, LTO would have been equally high for all four countries; longterm goals and plans were an integral part of the everyday rhetoric used in the Communist-controlled media and in the workplace. Comparisons between managers and employees yielded only two significant differences: managers, overall, were higher on IND. and employees were higher on MAS. These results are in line with eariier findings in olher countries, suggesting that the higher the education levels, the higher the IND scores (Kuchinke, 1999), and that managers display lower levels of MAS than skilled production employees (Hofstede, 1997).

Ardichvili This study confirmed the earlier findings by Aycan and others (1999, 2000) that PTl and FTI arc highly salient dimensions, especially in a number of Asian countries, and could have significant implications for international HRD and leadership research. The high levels of these dimensions in all four countries of this study suggest that these dimensions should be further explored and used in studies of management and HRD practices in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Concerning the leadership dimensions, one notable finding was thai Russian managers and employees reported lower levels of transformational leadership behaviors than their counterparts in the olher three countries. A possible explanation is that lhe Russian population, having experienced tighter Communist party control during the Soviet times than the other republics of the former USSR (the effect of being closer to the center of power), developed a stronger aversion to the rhetoric associated with CHA and IM. It should be noted that even though in the other three countries scores for CHA were higher than in Russia, overall CHA scored the lowest among the iransformalional leadership dimensions in all four countries. Further, although ME yielded lower scores for all four countries, the second dimension of transactional leadership—CR—produced high scores for three out of four counlnes. This could be explained by the transition from egalitarian conditions of low relationship between work effort and compensation to more market-driven arrangements and an associated need for new leadership approaches. For all four countries, cultural value dimensions used in this study predicted leadership styles bul accounted for a small portion of variance. This could suggest two possibilities. First, some olher factors could have stronger effects on leadership than cultural value dimensions. Second, the dimensions used in ihis study may noi cover the whole universe of cultural value dimensions relevant to leadership. For example, the fact that IND did not emerge as an important predictor may be due to the use in this study of Hofstedes conceplualizaiion of this phenomenon, which views individualism and collectivism as polar points of a single continuum. However, Triandis and colleagues (1988) propose that they are unique constructs and need to be split inlo separate continua. This proposition was supported by more recent cross-cultural research (Earley and Gibson, 1998; Ralston, Nguyen Van Thang, and Napier, 1999). In addition, both individualism and collectivism may be multifaceted dimensions consisting of more than one component (Triandis, 1995). Limitations and Future Research Directions. Because the relationships between leadership and national culture dimensions in this study were weak, we need to continue ihis investigation at other levels. For example, is it possible that individual organizational cultures play a more important role Lhan couniry-level cultures? Furthermore, two countries in this study—Russia and Kazakhstan—are among the largest countries in the world in terms of their territory. They are characterized by an amazmg variety of terrain and climatic


379

zones, and they include numerous regions with a variety of economic development levels. In addition, Russia includes numerous autonomous ethnic regions. All this means that conclusions based on a sampling of industrial enterprises located in a handful of major cities may not be generalizable to enterprises located in other regions of lhe country In drawing conclusions from this study, we need to be fully aware ol its limitations. First, as is true for most cross-cultural management, leadership, and human resource studies, this study was not based on a truly random sample of countries or enterprises (Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). Further, participation in all nine locations was voluntary; although efforts were made to reduce the response bias, the presence of this bias cannot be ruled out entirely. Third, although using existing, previously tested instrumentation has numerous benefits (for example, proven psychometric properties of the instrument or ability to compare the results viith earlier findings in other countries), it also limits our ability to capture additional dimensions that could be salient for a specific country or geographic region. For example, the fact that the relationship between the cultural value dimensions and leadership styles was only a moderate one could be explained by the existence in these countries of other leadership behaviors or cultural dimensions that were not accounted for in this study This observation suggests that further studies are needed in all three domains—cultural value dimensions on several levels (country, region, orgatiization), leadership styles, and the interface of culture and leadership. Also, to capture dimensions not accounted for by existing models, these studies should be based on mixed-method approaches, including both quantitative and qualitative methods (Caracelli and Greene, 1997). Implications Jor HRD Practitioners. Overall, this study demonstrates that cultural dimensions and leadership styles are significantly different among the four post-Communist countries, and that the patterns of relationships between tbe leadership styles and culture are different. This suggests that any attempts to develop leadership training programs for the former Soviet Union or to conduct organization development interventions based on Western HRD theories should be tailored to each country's culture; the republics of the former USSR should not be treated as similar in their management and work cultures, ln addition, because the study findings suggest that national-level cultural value dimensions play only a modest role in leadership style variance, each inter\'ention should take into account other possible factors (for example, regional, organizational, and professional cultures, as well as each country's economic conditions and political situation at the time of intervention), which calls for a detailed assessment of the environmental factors prior to the intervention design. We also found that grouping countries based on cultural, geographic, or religious proximity could be equally questionable. For example, one could expect that Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, being close to one another in geographic location and language, would form a homogeneous subset and would

ArdichviU differ on all dimensions from Russia and Georgia. However, on the majority of leadership and cultural dimensions, either one or both of the first two countries were aligned with Russia or Georgia (or with both). This suggests, again, that attempts to develop leadership training programs for the former USSR or to conduct organization development inter\'entions based on Western HRD theories should be tailored to each country's specificity Furthermore, some of Hofstede's dimensions either failed the tests of reliability (PDl and UAI) or produced results different from the earlier findings (MAS). UAI has been found by a number of researchers (for example, Rotondo, Carlson, Stepina, and Nicholson, 1997; Kuchinke, 1999) to be the least stable of Hofstede's dimensions. And Rotondo and others (1997), in their large-scale multicountry study, found significant changes in country scores for some cultural values measured by Hofstede in the 1980s. For example, in Western countries, the levels of MAS and PDl were much lower in 1997 than in the 1980s. Therefore the present study provides additional support for the conclusion arrived at by Kuchinke (1999): HRD researchers and practitioners should conduct their own culture assessments in each study or performance intervention and not rely on general scores reported earlier. A comparison of leadership dimension scores for managers from these four countries with the U.S, scores reported by Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1995) suggests that overall U.S. managers sbow higher levels on all four transformational leadership dimensions and lower scores on transactional leadership dimensions. And as indicated earlier, CR leadership (defined as making clear what rewards could be expected by employees for meeting agreed-upon performance standards) received high ratings in all four countries. This finding has multiple implications for Western HRD professionals helping their counterparts in the fornier USSR to develop leadership and management training programs. First. Western HRD practitioners should keep in mind that despite current popularity in the United States of charismatic and transformational leadership styles, the realities of workplace culture and, therefore, training and development needs in post-Communist countries could be different. Specifically it would be a mistake to emphasize transformational styles only, without acknowledging the importance and usefulness of using a balanced combination of transformational and transactional styles.

References Ardichvili. A,, Cardozo, R. N., & Gasparishviii. A, (1998). Leadership styles and management practices of Russian entrepreneurs: Implications for iransferabtlity of Western HRD inierventions. Human Rewurcc Development Quarterly, 9 (2), 145-155. Avolio, B.. Bass, B M,,andjxing. D, tl995), MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Technical report, Palo Akc). CA: Mind Garden, Aycan. Z., & Kanungo. R. N. (1998). PaiernaUsm: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. Paper presented at the H i h Internaiional Congress of Cross-Cuiiural Psychology, St, Louis, MO,


381

Aycan, Z,. Kanungo, R, N,, Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J,, Siahl. G.. & Kurshid. A. (2000), Impaci of culttire on human resource management practices: A ten-country comparison. Applied Psycholo^: An Imcrnational Review. 49 (1). 192-221, Aycan. Z., Sinha, J.B.P, & Kanungo, R. N, (1999). Organizaiional culture and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Culturai Psychology. 30 (4), 501-526. Bass, B, (1996), A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into tramjormational leadership. Alexandria. VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Bass, B, (1997), Does the transacUonai-iransformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psyiholo^t. 52. 130-139, Bass. E, M, (1985), Leadership and pcijormancc beyond expectations. New York: Free Press, Becker. G. (1998), A free-market winner vs, a Soviet-style loser, BusinessWeek. Aug, 3, 1989, p,22, Bennis. W C i i N a n u s , B. (1985), Leaders: The straieês for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Berger, N, (1999), Human resource issues in Russia: A case study Advanca. in Developing Human Resources, 4, 38-54. Bernstein. M, H. (1992), Fatalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, Biiilingcr, P (1994), The four cornerstones and three pillars in the "House of Russia" management system. Journal oJ Marxagement Devtiopmenl, 13 (2). 49-54, Brown, A. (Ed,). (1994). The Cambridge encyclopedia of Russia and the former Soviet Union. Cambridge: The University Press, Caracelli, V. 6? Greene. J, (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions/or Evaluation, 74, 19-32, Clarke, S. (1996). The Russian enterprise In iransilion; Case studies, Cheiienham. U,K.: Edward Elgar, Cohen, J, (1977). Statistical power analysis for behavioral scicnct. New York: Academic Press, Cray, D., & Mallory. G. (1998), Making sense of managing culiwre. International Thompson: London, Dcii Hartog. D, N., House. R, J.Hanges, P,J,. Ruiz-Quinianilla, A,. & Dorfman, P W (1999), Culture specific and cross-culturaliy generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? leadership Quarterly, W (2). 219-256 Earley, P C , & Gibson, C, B, (1998), Taking stock in our progress on individualism-coUecUvism: lOOyearsof solidarity and community.Joumaio/Munugemenf, 24, 265-304. Elenkov, D, (1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A caiss-cultural comparative study CaiifomiaManagement Review, 40(4), 133-156. Finch, M, (1999), In transit: Traditional and SovielinQuence in Kazakhsun. World and I, J4(7). 210-212. Hall, E, T., & Hall, M. R. (1989), Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth. ME: Imercuhural Press. Hickson, D. J,, &Pugh, D. S, (1995). Management woHdivide, London: Penguin, Hofstede. G, (1984), Culture's consequences: /ntcrndlional dlj/ercnces in work-related volues. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Hofstede. G. (1993), Cultural constraints in management iKeories. Th.e Academy of Management Executive, 7 01 S]-94Hofstede, G. (1997), Culfurrs and organizatioiis: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill, Hofstede, G. (n.d,). Values survey module 1994: Manual UniversiLy of Limburg: Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation, Hofstede, G,. & Bond, M, H, (1988), The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics. J6 (4), 4-21, House, R-J. (1995), Leadership in the 21st century: A speculative inquiry, ln A, Howard (Ed.), The chan^ng nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

382

Ardichvili

Howell, D, (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. Beimoni. CA: Duxbuiy Press. Industry Report, (1997, Oct.), Training, 34 (10), 33-75, Jaeger, A, M, (1984), The appropriateness of organization development outside North America, International Studies of Management and Organization, 14 (1), 23-35, Jung, D, L, Bass. B, M.. & Sosik, J, J, (1995), Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transfonnaiional leadership and collectlvistic cultures, TheJoutTmi of Leadership Studies. 2 (4), 3-18. Kim, U. M, (1994), Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupational welfare system of Korean firms: A national survey In U, Kim, H. C, Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi. S. Choi, & G, Yoon (Eds,), /ndividualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 251-266), London: Sage. KJellin. L., & Nilstun, T, (1993). Medical and social paternalism: Regulation of and attitudes towards compulsory psychiatric care, Acta-Psychiatrica-Scandinavica. 88 (6). 4 1 5 ^ 1 9 . Kluckhohn. E R,, &r Strodtbeck. F L, (1961), Variafions in value orientations. Evanson, IL: Row Peterson. Kuchinke, K, P (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related valties and leadership styles among one company^ U,S, and German lelecommunication employees. Human Resource Devdopmeiil

Quarterly, 10(2). 135-154, Lee. M,, Letiche. H,. Câ\^^haw. R,, far Thomas, M, (Eds,), (1996). Management education in the new Europe. London: International Thomson Business, Lowe, K, B,, Kroeck, K, G,, &r Sivasubramaniam, N, (1996), Effectiveness correlates of transformaiional and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review ofthe MLQ literature, Leadership

Quarterly. 7, 385^25, Maczynski,J,. &r Kiropman, P (2000). Culture and leadership profiles in Europe: Some results from lhe GLOBE study, ln M, Koslowsky & S. Stashevsky (Eds,), Work values and organizational Mttivior toward the new niilcnnium. Proceedings of the 7th Bi-Annual Conference of the International Society for Study of Work and Organization Values (ISSWOV), Jerusalem. pp,385-391 McLean. G. (1991), Research needs in international HRD, In R, L, Jacofis (Ed,), Organizational issues and human resource deveiopmfm research tpp. 39-52), Columbus: University Council for Research in Human Resource Development and Ohio State University, Merabishnli. L (1997). Georgia OT\ my mind, Index on Censorship. 26 (4). 85-90, Naumov, A, (1996), Hofstede^ measurement of Russia: The influence of national culture on business management. Management. J (3), 70-103, Northouse, F G, (1997), Leadership: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peterson, L, (1997), International HRD: Wliat we know and what we don't know. Human Resourrf Development Quarterly. 8 (1). 63-80, PuikhoRJv, V (Ed,), (1972a), Gruzinskaya Soveiskaya Soziatisticheskaya Respubiika, In Bolshaya Sovetskaya EnzifelopcdivtJ (3rd ed.. Vol. 7: p, 394), Moscow: 51; Publishing, Prokhorov, V (Ed.). (1972b), Kazakhskaya Soveiskaya Sozialisticheskaya Respubiika, In Bolsha^'a Sovetshaya Enziklopediya (3rd ed., Vol, 11; pp. 145-172), Moscow: SE Publishing, Puffer. S, (1996). Leadership in a Russmn context. In S, Puffer (Ed.), Business and management jn Russia (pp. 38-56), Cheltenham. U,K,: Edward Elgar, Ralston, D A,. Nguyen Van Thang, & Napier, N, (1999) A comparative study of the work values of North and South Vietnamese managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4), 655-672, Redding. S, G,, dr Hsiao, H, M, (1995). An empirical study of overseas Chinese managerial ideology. In H.S.R, Kao, D, Sinha, & N, Sek-Hong (Eds,). Effective organizations and social values (pp, 72-85). New Delhi: Sage, Redding, S. G.. Norman, A,, & Schlander, A. (1994), The nature of individual attachment to theory: A review of East Asian variations. In H, C. Triandis, M. D, Dunnett, & L M, Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industriai and organizarionaJ psychology (Vol. 4, pp, 674-688). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Leadership Styks and Work-Related Values

383

Rotondo, D. E. Carlson. D, S.. Srepina, L, R, & Nicholson, J. D, (1997), Hofstede^ country classification 25 years later. The journal of Social Psychology. 137 (1), 43-55. Rotter, J, B, (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, SO (Serl; no, 609). Safavi. F (1997). The challenge of management education and development in Kazakhstan: Opportunities and threats in a changing environment, yowniu/ of Management Deveiopment. 16 (3). 167-177. Sashkin. M, (1988), The visionary leader. In j. A, Conger &r R. A, Kanungo (Eds,), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizationai effectiveness (pp. 122-160), San Francisco: JosseyBass, Schreibman, J, (1998), "It didn't used to be like this': Hospitality m a crumbling post-Soviet Georgia. World and 1,13 (8). 196-204, Sergenian, G, K,. & Blodett. M, (1998), Business training for a new republic: A seminar series for Kazakh oil executives. Journal o/Teaching in Inlemational Business, 10(1). 77-92, Shabad. S. (1998). A nation of rebels. World Press Review, 46 (1). 21-22, Sinha. J,B,P (1995), The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage, Smith, P B,, Misumi. J,, Tayeb. M.. Peterson. M,, & Bond. M. (1989), On the generality of leadership style measures across cultures. Journal oJ Occupational Psychology, 62 (2). 97-110, Tichy, N. M,. &: Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational lcticie'r(2nd ed,). New York: Wiley, Triandis, H, (1995), Individualism and col!ec(lvism. Boulder, CO: Westview, Triandis. H, C , Bontetnpo, R., Villareal, M,J,. Asai, M,,& Lucca, N, (1988), Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self~in-group relationships, journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21, 323-338. Trompenaars, F (1993), Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey. Van de Vijver, E, & Leung. K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London: Sage, Wigglesworih, D, C. (1987), Is OD basically Anglo-Saxon? Some potentially controversial thoughts on applying OD in other cultures. Leadership and Organizatioti Development journal. 8(2). 29-31, Yukl, G,. & Van Fleet, D, D, (1992), Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M, Dunette &r L. M, Hough (Eds,). Handbook oJ industrial and organizational psycholttgy (2nd ed,. Vol, 3; pp, 147-197), Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press,

Alexander Ardichvili is assistant professor in the Depanmer\t of Human Resource Education, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champai^.