Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Strategic leadership across cultures: Current ndings and future research directions
Hui Wang a,*, David A. Waldman b, Hongyu Zhang a
a b

Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, China W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Strategic leadership Cross culture Upper echelons theory Current ndings Future research directions

Research on strategic leadership has proliferated for a long time. However, very little work has been conducted to investigate this issue from a cross-cultural perspective. To ll this gap, we rst review recent ndings on strategic leadership in different cultural backgrounds. Then, based on the upper echelons theory, we summarize what researchers have found regarding the effects of personal characteristics of strategic leaders on rm performance in terms of observed personal experience, personality, values, cognitive style, and leadership behaviors. Furthermore, we generate some future research directions focusing on concepts, theories, and also methodological issues of strategic leadership across cultures. We consider how research across different cultures will enrich our understanding of strategic leadership and unfold the black box of why and how strategic leaders have positive effects on rm level performance. Finally, practical implications for managers are considered. 2012 Elsevier Inc.. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction As competition in the global economy becomes increasingly complex and challenging, rms encounter and attempt to deal with numerous opportunities and threats. Management scholars and practitioners have worked hard to develop different theories and methods to help organizations adapt. Research has shown that strategic leadership practices can help rms enhance their effectiveness and efciency and, thus, their abilities to compete in dynamic and uncertain environments (e.g., Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Furthermore, an increasing number of scholars have realized that the majority of existing management theories have been developed in the Western context and may not be necessarily applicable to management globally (Hofstede, 1993; Tsui, 2006). Leadership theory, a key part of management theory in general, is not an exception. House and Aditya (1997:109) pointed out that almost all of the prevailing theories of leadership and about 98% of empirical evidence come from the United States. At the same time, in order to identify culture-specic and universal behaviors of leaders, scholars have paid increasing attention to cross-cultural issues (Fu & Yukl, 2000; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,

This research is supported by a grant from Natural Science Foundation of China (the number is 71032001) awarded to the rst author. * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: wanghui@gsm.pku.edu.cn (H. Wang), waldman@asu.edu (D.A. Waldman), zhanghongyu09@pku.edu.cn (H. Zhang).

2004; Silverthorne, 2001). For example, Dorfman and Howell (1988) examined the impact of charismatic leadership on employee satisfaction in two countries, nding that the impact was much stronger in the United States compared to that in Mexico. In a recent study, Shao and Webber (2006) found that the positive relationship between extraversion and transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000), which was empirically supported in the Western context, could not be established in the Chinese context. The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project is an inuential effort that explores the impact of cultural values on leadership effectiveness in 62 countries. Its goal is to develop an empirically based theory of cross-cultural leadership (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). Although much of its empirical evidence supports the important role of culture in shaping different leadership behaviors and predicting leadership effectiveness, to date, much of the GLOBE project has been limited to middle managers not executive leaders. This paper focuses on the nature of effective strategic leadership across different countries. Its purpose is to summarize research ndings on strategic leadership across cultural settings and outline possible future research directions. We aim to clarify what has been learned about strategic leadership in different countries and what we should do next to explore strategic leadership and the effectiveness of rms, as well as the mechanisms that link strategic leadership with a rms effectiveness. However, partly because of the difculty of collecting data at the executive level, especially when conducting cross-cultural

1090-9516/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc.. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.010

572

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

research, published empirical evidence on these topics remains quite limited. Therefore, in the following section, in addition to reviewing cross-cultural strategic leadership research, we will also compare the results of studies that are based on samples from different countries. The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. First, we conduct a review of strategic leadership research, which is based heavily on the upper echelons theory that was initially introduced by Hambrick and Mason (1984). Second, we summarize what researchers have found regarding the effects of personal characteristics of strategic leaders on rm performance in terms of observed personal experience, personality, values, cognition styles, and leadership behaviors. Third, based on this review, we suggest some general ideas pertaining to the next stage of research on strategic leadership across cultures by focusing on concepts, theories, and also methodological issues. 2. Upper echelons theory and strategic leadership Neither classic leadership research nor strategic management theory has paid sufcient attention to those leaders at strategic levels and their inuences on rms. As noted by House and Aditya (1997), strategic management has emphasized strategic choices or decisions, rather than the processes through which choices are actually made or implemented, and, therefore, the context in which the decisions are made has been oversimplied (e.g., Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992). Since the 1980s, leadership and strategic management researchers alike have been increasingly interested in phenomena pertaining to leaders at strategic levels. In short, increasing research has been conducted under the umbrella of strategic leadership based on the upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). According to Hambrick and Masons (1984) upper echelons theory, individual experience, personal values, cognitive style, and personality traits of the upper echelons have an important impact on companies strategic choices and decisions. Initially, upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), later evolving into strategic leadership theory (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996), suggested that the key dependent variable of concern is organizational performance, dened in terms of effectiveness, efciency, and stakeholders needs (Hambrick, 1989). However, increasing attention has been paid to rm-level behaviors more generally, instead of the nancial outcomes per se. Typical examples include middle managers attitudes and behaviors (Fu, Tsui, Liu, & Li, 2010; Wang, Tsui, & Xin, 2011), corporate strategy and structure (Miller & Toulouse, 1986), strategic persistence (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Keck & Tushman, 1993), socially responsible performance (Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006), external support (Flynn & Staw, 2004), managerial practices (Young, Charns, & Shortell, 2001), organizational learning (Crossan & Hulland, 2002; McGill & Slocum, 1993; Vera & Crossan, 2004), and illegal corporate activity (Daboub, Rasheed, Priem, & Gray, 1995). As for the key independent variables, Hambrick and Mason (1984) suggested two major classes of personal characteristics that contribute to an executives orientation, and, ultimately, the types of outcomes mentioned above. The rst set of characteristics is psychological properties, which include values, cognitive style and other elements including personality. Psychological factors yield conceptual clarity (Lawrence, 1997) as these characteristics provide a basis from which the executive lters and interprets stimuli, disposing executives to certain choices (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). However, the evaluation and assessment of these characteristics can be empirically difcult. Accordingly, a second and more common set of characteristics that has been studied involves those observable dimensions of a persons experiences, which include age, formal education, functional background, and other related

factors. In contrast to psychological characteristics, experiences can be studied via demographical data, which are abundant, measurable, and readily obtainable. The disadvantage is that demographic indicators may contain more noise than purer psychological measures (Hambrick & Mason, 1984:196). In other words, demographic proxies may suggest an underlying ability or psychological process, but they do not measure them directly. To date, most research on strategic leadership has been conducted in Western countries, especially the United States. Yet, it is not clear if there might be different results across different cultures. Upper echelons theory is basically an information ltering process (Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005). From this perspective, people will actively select the information and interpret it based on their idiosyncratic situations. The executives orientation, including psychological factors (such as personalities, values, cognitive style, and behaviors) and observable experiences (such as age, tenure, functional background and formal education), serves to lter or even potentially distort all potential environmental and organizational stimuli. Accordingly, there could be distinct orientations that could vary with culture. We consider upper echelons theory to be a useful and convincing perspective to understand leadership at the macro level. However, we also propose that this framework may overestimate the active role of people during the interactive process between people and the environment, thus neglecting the fact that people are often passively inuenced by environmental factors, such as culture. In other words, this framework does not adequately take into account cross-cultural phenomena. Although there may be aspects of a universally effective leadership style, there are also likely to be differences due to followers responses and/or contextual inuence embedded in different cultures (House et al., 2004). In sum, following the logic of the upper echelons theory, but balanced with an acknowledgement of the roles of people in their unique environments or contexts, we argue that culture inuences either strategic leadership prototypes or leadership effectiveness through ve important aspects: (1) observable experiences, (2) personalities, (3) values, (4) cognitive style, and (5) leadership behaviors. We now explore each of these aspects in the following sections. 3. Observable experiences Observable experiences, typically proxied by demographic variables, have been the primary means by which scholars study strategic leadership, due to the relative ease of data collection (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), as well as some interesting ndings that have been reported (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Early on, demographic variables were incorporated in strategic leadership studies through simple, descriptive analysis (Child, 1974). Later, scholars began to realize that such simple statistics lacked validity or theoretical meaning with regard to evaluating the characteristics of executive leaders. Demographic variables can only be considered as proxies for underlying processes. Therefore, as described further below, scholars have explored the psychological bases of these observable experiences. In addition, scholars have adopted a strategic contingency perspective, examining the importance of the t between demographic variables and environmental inuences (e.g., Wu, Levitas, & Priem, 2005). Specically, we will focus on three factors of observable experience: tenure, functional background, and top management team (TMT) heterogeneity. 3.1. Tenure Age and the length of tenure can affect an executives attitude and behaviors, which in turn can inuence the executives

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

573

decision-making and actions, as well as rm outcomes (Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009). In empirical studies, executive tenure has various denitions including tenure in the position, tenure in the organization, and tenure in the industry. However, empirical studies, based on these different denitions, share the same theme that the length of tenure can be either benecial or harmful to the rm. On the one hand, longer tenure will produce inertia such that executives holding long tenure are likely to show passive attitudes toward change (Musteen, Barker, & Baeten, 2006), and correspondingly, rms are unlikely to be innovative (Young et al., 2001). On the other hand, longer tenure will create more experience and higher prestige so that executives with long tenure may easily nd support inside their organizations. For example, Simsek (2007) attempted to link the relationship between CEO tenure and rm performance through the mechanism of TMT interface, arguing that the longer tenure of a CEO will build more trust within a TMT, thus facilitating more risk-taking behaviors. Environmental dynamism is a key factor that might moderate the impact of tenure. For example, in technologically dynamic environments, short-tenured CEOs invest more, while the result is opposite in stable environments (Wu et al., 2005). Overall, different countries can present different business environments to executives of rms. Therefore, although there are very few empirical studies on cross-cultural effects of tenure, it is reasonable to conclude that the relationship between the executive leaders tenure and rm-level outcomes may follow different patterns in different countries. The difference may not only be attributed to economic activities, but it may also be due to some deep societal beliefs such as uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and other cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980). Attitudes toward aging people constitute another possible explanation for such cross-cultural differences. In some Asian countries such as China, where there is a long tradition of respecting elders, the length of tenure may be benecial to the rm since the experience side of longer tenure will be more valued. However, in other societies where innovation or initiatives are popular, the length of tenure may be harmful to the rm, since the inertia side of longer tenure will be emphasized. 3.2. Functional background The link between functional background and rm-level outcomes can occur through several mechanisms (Finkelstein et al., 2009), among which the most convincing is that functional background can shape an executives cognitive perspective and knowledge base (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that there are two types of functions: (1) output functions, such as marketing and R&D, and (2) throughput functions, such as production and nance. Output functions are outside-oriented in that executives with such functional experiences tend to pursue prospector strategies. On the other hand, the throughput functions are inside-oriented in that executive with such functional experiences tend to pursue defender strategies (Finkelstein et al., 2009). With that said, the above link may vary across cultures since executive functional background, which is embedded in the societal culture and context, may inuence executive cognition. For example, although Katz and Kahn (1978) dened nance as throughput functions, recently, nance has become a more outside-oriented function with the goal of not only cost control, but also capital attainment. Based on a sample of Fortune 500 companies, Jensen and Zajac (2004) found that CEOs with a nancial background tend toward diversication strategies. Yet, Chen and Sun (2008) found a directly opposite result in China. One possible explanation is that the function of nance is oriented

toward cost control in Chinese societies, while it is more oriented toward capital attainment in the U.S. The emphasis on general management is another possible mechanism that is affected by cultural differences. Finkelstein et al. (2009) proposed that the relationship between an executives functional background and his/her interpretation of strategic stimuli is weaker if the broader cultural milieu emphasizes general management. Dearborn and Simon (1958) found a functional bias in interpreting business problems, but 30 year later, after MBA programs became popular, Walsh (1988) could not replicate Dearborn and Simon (1958)s results because of the increasing emphasis of MBA programs on general management, rather than functional importance. To sum up, it is possible for executives with the same functional knowledge base to develop various cognitive models across cultures, thus requiring the interpretation of the nature or the importance of certain functions differently. 3.3. TMT heterogeneity Hambrick (2007) suggested using characteristics of the entire top management team (TMT), rather than just the CEO, as a meaningful unit of analysis when predicting organizational actions and outcomes. Beyond characteristics of individual executives, the overall nature of the TMT may also be relevant to rm outcomes. Along these lines, TMT heterogeneity has received some research attention. Most studies treated TMT heterogeneity (e.g., in terms of age, gender, background, etc.) as a proxy for cognitive variety (Milliken & Martins, 1996). On the one hand, cognitive variety can enhance creativity or innovation, especially in a turbulent environment (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993). On the other hand, it also can potentially hinder internal communication, thus generating disharmony within a team (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). In addition, TMT disparity in terms of pay or status can lead to internal competition and even deviance among members (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Recent work on demographic faultlines may hold special promise for understanding the effects of diversity in TMTs. Lau and Murnighan (1998) referred to combinations of correlated aspects of diversity that provide a clear basis for differentiation between subgroups. The idea underlying faultlines is that there are both between-group differences and within-group similarity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Harrison and Klein (2007) noted that the disparity resulting from faultlines can mitigate the potential advantages of diversity for teams. As an example, Li and Hambrick (2005) used the demographic characteristics of age, tenure, gender, and ethnicity to show how faultlines within joint venture management groups engendered a greater degree of task conict, emotional conict, and behavioral disintegration. This poorer group process, in turn, led to poor performance on the part of highly factional (on the basis of faultlines) groups. To date, there is little research directly comparing TMT heterogeneity and its effects on aspects of rm effectiveness across cultures. However, we consider such comparisons to represent a very important and interesting topic. For example, in some Asian societies, there may be less diversity or heterogeneity in TMTs, as compared to TMTs in Western societies. How might such a lack of internal differences affect TMTs in those societies, as compared to cultures with more diversity (and, thus, more likely to have diverse TMTs)? 4. Personality The personality-based perspective of leadership traces back to the 1930s. It long dominated the initial decades of the leadership literature. At the beginning, this paradigm aimed at searching for

574

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

individual personality traits that separated effective leaders from others. Unfortunately, the paradigm did not thrive. House and Aditya (1997) noted several reasons for the failure of this paradigm, among which the most important one was the lack of consensus on leadership traits, especially when considering contextual inuences. With that said, in the strategic management literature, the issue of the potential effects of executive personality on organizational outcomes has grown in prominence. For example, Finkelstein et al. (2009) considered the inuence of self-concept, especially core self-evaluation, as well as the related construct of narcissism, on organizational outcomes. While some research has shown negative ndings pertaining to executive narcissism and rm outcomes (e.g., Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009), other research and theory is more mixed or dynamic (Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). For example, Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007) demonstrated that a CEOs narcissistic tendencies to be positively related to the dynamism of a companys strategy, the number and size of acquired companies, the extremity of the companys performance and the uctuation in the companys performance. As another example, Galvin, Waldman, et al. (2010) showed that narcissist tendencies could lead to bolder, but less socialized, visions. Further, Li and Tang (2010), using a sample from China, explored the relationship between CEO hubris and rm risk taking and found that the relationship is moderated by managerial discretion and other institutional factors, such as environmental conditions of target market, organizational inertia, duality of CEO and Chair on board, and so forth. We suggest that it is important to conduct cross-cultural research on the effects of strategic leaders personalities. In different cultures, people place different weights on various leadership traits. For example, narcissism is a personality that is discussed primarily in the Western literature, in accordance with cultures that tend to advocate individualism (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). However, Chinese society is rooted in Confucian philosophy and is collectivistic in nature. Personality characteristics such as narcissism may be much less accepted than those in Western societies. Accordingly, humility, dened as personal orientation founded on a willingness to see the self accurately and a propensity to put oneself in perspective (Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005:1331), may match Eastern cultures better and deserves future research. For example, we are starting to see work on over-condence (Malmendier & Tate, 2008) and humility (Collins, 2001; Ou, 2011). It may be promising to consider both narcissism/hubris and humility simultaneously since Ou (2011) showed that the two are not strongly correlated. That is, it may actually be possible for an executive to be somewhat narcissistic, while maintaining a degree of humility. Perhaps such leaders are most in line with the good to great leaders identied by Collins (2001). At the middle-manager level, existing studies have already proved that the personality-leadership link differs by culture. For example, Silverthorne (2001) made a cross-cultural comparison between effective middle-level leaders and non-effective middlelevel leaders among three countries: China, Thailand, and United States. He found that in the U.S. sample, effective leaders are more emotionally stable, more extraverted, more open to experience, more agreeable, and more conscientious. However, in the Thailand sample, only emotional stability and extraversion yielded signicant differences between effective vs. non-effective leaders. In the Chinese sample, the differences were especially strong for two dimensions: emotional stability and conscientiousness, and there were not signicant differences on the dimension of openness to experience. Such differences are in part due to the Chinese Confucian philosophy that highly values social order, conformity,

harmony and interpersonal relationships (Redding & Wong, 1986; Punnett, 1994). Despite the above rationale, to date, most research on leaders personalities across cultures has focused on middle-level managers (Silverthorne, 2001; Shao & Webber, 2006), rather than on executive leaders. We encourage more cross-cultural research dealing with the effects of executive personality on organizational outcomes. 5. Values Values represent enduring beliefs (Rokeach, 1973) that reect a broad tendency to engage in behaviors related to those beliefs (Hambrick & Brandon, 1988; Hofstede & Bond, 1984). The enduring nature of values makes them more powerful than attitudes or even emotions in predicting peoples behaviors. Early on, England (1967) described several mechanisms through which values can inuence managers in terms of their perceptions of situations and problems, their decisions and solutions to problems, their interpersonal relationships, their perception of individual and organizational success or achievements, and their acceptance or resistance of organizational pressures. At the organizational level, there are mixed results on the relationship between personal values and organizational outcomes. Agle, Mitchell, and Sonnenfeld (1999) found no signicant relationship between CEO values and corporate performance. Similarly, Akaah and Lund (1994) showed that although organizational values could predict ethical behavior, personal values could not. However, Berson, Oreg, and Dvir (2008), using Israeli companies in their research, showed that CEOs values would impact organizational outcomes through the development of organizational culture. There is some cross-cultural research involving executives values. For example, Hood (2003) identied four kinds of values: personal, social, competency-based, and morality-based. In his research, transformational leadership was closely related to all these values, while transactional leadership was only related to personal values. Fu et al. (2010) noted that, in China, the relationship between a CEOs transformational behaviors and middle managers affective commitment or intention to leave depends on the CEOs values. Specically, the relationship will be the weakest when CEOs have a lower level of self-transcendent, and a higher level of self-enhancement, values. Furthermore, Waldman, de Luque, Washburn, House et al. (2006) linked societal culture, CEO visionary leadership and integrity, and social responsibility values. In sum, although there are some studies focusing on cross-cultural or cross-national differences in values (e.g., Bateman, ONeill, & Kenworthy-URen, 2002; Schwartz, 1992), we do not know why or how those differences may inuence organization-level effectiveness. More research is needed to compare the different values at leadership levels and investigate the causes and effects of values differences. 6. Cognitive style One of the core ideas of the upper echelons perspective is that the strategies of organizations are reections of the cognitive bases of executives (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Finkelstein et al., 2009). Therefore, in the strategic leadership literature, increasing attention has been given to executives cognitive style. Constructs like mental maps, meta-learning, and mindsets all deal with the mental models that guide decision-makers to deal with complex problems (March & Simon, 1958; Simon & Barnard, 1976). According to the bounded rationality (Simon, 1991) and managerial cognition (Weick, 1995) literatures, during the information ltering process, an executives cognition serves as a lens through which the

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

575

executive denes the situation (Dutton & Duncan, 1987), nds the problems and responds (Cyert & March, 1963). Therefore, CEOs with different cognitive styles demonstrate different behaviors toward a specic situation. However, cognitive styles are not entirely determined by innate factors, and numerous studies have shown the impact of the leaders environment or context. For example, Calori, Johnson, and Sarnin (1994) noted that in a rm with a variety of businesses, the CEOs cognitive maps are more comprehensive and less connected. These studies are called situated cognition studies, which originated from the pioneering work of a Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934). He put much emphasis on the importance of cultural, historical and institutional contexts for cognition, highlighting the use of ecological approaches in psychology (Barnett & Karson, 1989). Specically, within the scope of strategic leadership, Geletkanycz (1997) suggested that culture played an important role in terms of impacting an executives mindset, and executives exposed to different cultures were not likely to show an equal attitude toward strategic change or had the same leadership prole. According to recent research, individuals exposed to multiple cultures have multiple cognitive systems and exible action frameworks (Hong & Chiu, 2001). In other words, people across cultures are likely to demonstrate different cognitive systems and styles. For example, compared with Western people holding analytical cognitive style usually, Chinese people more frequently exhibit comprehensive, integral, and dialectic thinking style (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Accordingly, when processing complex information, leaders can practice paradoxical cognition patterns. In other words, they tolerate, coordinate and integrate conicting factors (Smith & Tushman, 2005). Specically, in many East Asian countries, executives share a common cognitive style known as dialectic thinking (Lloyd, 1990; Zhang & Chen, 1991). It is characterized in terms of a tolerance for contradictions, expectation for change, and cognitive holism. This cognitive style is rooted in the traditional Chinese philosophy, Taoism, which argues that any contradictions are opposed, but connected and mutually controlled, and they could exist in an active harmony. Dialectic thinking or cognition may drive executives to show distinctive behaviors in Eastern societies, although until now there are quite limited empirical tests on this topic. In a theoretical paper, Wang and Huang (2011) proposed that leaders with high levels of dialectic thinking style will show power sharing and management control simultaneously, as well as put strategic emphasis on both exploration and exploitation simultaneously. Although dialectical thinking evolved largely from Eastern philosophical traditions, the concept of paradoxes is not totally missing in Western-based thought (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). For example, Sagie (1997) suggested the loose-tight principle, whereby leaders need to simultaneously have tight control mechanisms (e.g., rules or procedures), but be willing to bend those mechanisms (i.e., be more loose), should circumstances dictate the need to do so. As another example, Peters (1991) directly considered the value of paradoxes. Indeed, he specically pointed out that the guiding premise to effective leadership in the future would be the ability to deal with paradoxes. It is interesting to note that a number of Peters (1991) original ideas were pursued further by subsequent management gurus and even management/leadership theorists over the past two decades. However, until recently (see Smith & Lewis, 2011), the notion of paradoxes has not received much notoriety or further attention in the management literature. With that said, perhaps the time is ripe for a better understanding of the management of paradoxes in different cross-cultural settings. To sum up, cognitive activities intertwine both mental nature and social characteristics. Therefore, executives perceptions of

environmental information may not be universal across people in different locations/cultures, or at all times. From this perspective, it is important to conduct cross-cultural studies on executives cognitive style.

7. Leadership behaviors Following Hambrick and Masons (1984) framework, many scholars have tested the effects of executive behaviors on organizational performance. For example, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) proposed a charismatic theory of leadership and analyzed the leadership effects of U.S. presidents. They found presidential charisma to be associated with presidential performance, particularly during periods of crises. Using an industrial sample, Waldman et al. (2001) also showed that CEO charismatic leadership behavior is signicantly related to rm performance, especially under the condition of high environmental uncertainty. Waldman and Yammarino (1999) developed a formal model to explain the charisma of a CEO and its potential effects on organizational outcomes. In their model, charismatic executives inuence organizational performance by their effects throughout lower levels of management. They proposed that key behaviors of charismatic leaders include articulating a vision, making sense of the mission, showing determination, and communicating high performance expectations. The favorable effects of charismatic leadership behaviors on followers include generating followers condence in the leader, making followers feel good in the leaders presence, and obtaining strong admiration or respect from the employees even to the extent of sacricing self-interest to follow the dreams or goals of the charismatic leader (House et al., 1991; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). More recent theorizing would suggest that charismatic executives also use surrogates and networking to spread the word regarding their charismatic behaviors and ideas (Galvin, Balkundi, & Waldman, 2010). In addition to these studies and theory development in the West, similar leadership behaviors have also been investigated in other cultures. For example, Fu et al. (2010) conducted research to investigate the relationship between CEO transformational behaviors and middle managers affective commitment or intentions to leave. Based on previous research on strategic leadership behaviors, Wang et al. (2011) developed an indigenous measure of strategic leadership behaviors specic to Chinese organizations. They also investigated the effects of these leadership behaviors on rm performance, as mediated by employees attitudes towards their organizations. However, there has been less research on how culture may inuence executive leadership behaviors and their effects. Whether effective leadership behaviors are culture-specic (emic) or universal (etic) has long been a controversial issue. A generally accepted view is that both emic leadership behaviors and etic leadership behaviors exist (Bass, 1990; Dorfman et al., 1997), but increasing attention is being given to the emic position. For example, scholars have found that effective leadership in China is somewhat different from that in the Western literature. For example, Ling (1991) found the Chinese leadership included three elements, that is, C (moral character), P (performance), M (relationship maintenance). Further, Westwood (1997), and Farh and Cheng (2000) focused on the paternalistic leadership style in China. Based on data from leaders in the Chinese mainland, Tsui, Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu (2004) and Wang, Xin, and Tsui (2006) discovered six leadership behavior dimensions and four leadership styles. Misumi and Peterson (1985) identied PM, in terms of performance-oriented and maintenance-oriented, as the most effective leadership behaviors in Japanese society. Sinha (1980) noted that nurturing task leaders demonstrated effective beha-

576

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

viors (concern for both task and relationships simultaneously) in Indian society. In further research, Westwood and Chan (1992) identied a father-like leadership style in Asian societies and called it paternalism leadership. This style contains three sub-meanings: clear and strong authority, concern and considerateness and morality. Moreover, Rodrigues (1990) stated several possible relationships between culture dimensions and leadership behaviors. For example, directive leadership may be more effective in societies with high power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. However, supportive leadership may be more effective in societies with moderate power distance and collectivism. Lastly, there may be cultural contingencies in manifesting some etic leadership behaviors. For example, Bass (1997) argued that transformational leadership behaviors can be either autocratic and directive, or democratic and participative. In individualistic societies like the U.S., transformational leaders will be expected to show participative behaviors, whereas in collectivistic societies like China, transformational leaders will be expected to show directive behaviors. 8. Future research directions According to the above review, we observe that cross-cultural, strategic leadership is still in the early stage of development, yet highly promising. Theoretically, this topic is related to both leadership and cross-cultural research that could draw on a range of perspectives. It is a research area from which new theories and perspectives could emerge. Practically, there is an increased speed of globalization with regard to business, and taking culture into account could be benecial to strategic leaders and their organizations. From this standpoint, understanding executive leadership across cultures is of great importance. Based on upper echelons theory, our article provides an overview to illustrate how culture matters to strategic leadership studies. In our analysis, culture can inuence strategic leadership prototypes or leadership effectiveness through ve aspects: observable experiences, personality, values, cognitive style, and leadership behaviors. In other words, culture can serve as either an antecedent or moderator to inuence different aspects of executive leaders. We believe that the above review will improve our knowledge of strategic leadership. However, we also admit that our review has left many questions that deserve future investigation. Below, we summarize possible future research directions. 8.1. The role of culture First and foremost, we encourage researchers to investigate the role of culture related to strategic leadership and also its effects on organizational outcomes. Our review suggests that different aspects of strategic leadership are inuenced by culture. However, we still lack knowledge of the mechanisms regarding how culture inuences strategic leadership. In order to ll such a gap, as a prerequisite, we must rst identify specic cultural dimensions. Some scholars have already made initial attempts in this direction. For example, Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) chose collectivism as an inuencing dimension. Using data from 577 employees from three emerging economies (China, India, and Kenya), they found that collectivism strengthens the relationships between transformational leadership and workrelated outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceptions of organizational withdrawal behaviors. Jung, Bass, and Sosik (1995) provided several perspectives to understand this phenomenon, such as leaders emphasis on collective goals and achievements, as well as followers respect

and obedience toward their leaders, both of which are consistent with the spirit of collectivism. These studies support the effect of culture. Yet their samples are limited to employees whose direct leaders are not executives. It is unclear whether researchers could generate the same conclusions with regard to executive leadership. Moreover, partly because of the ambiguous boundaries of culture, most existing studies have not systematically examined the cultural impact on strategic leadership. In the future, we need a theoretical framework with a cross-cultural perspective to guide and narrow strategic leadership research. Hofstedes (1980) framework is a very basic and helpful starting point, but we need more work in this direction (House et al., 2004). Cross-cultural research with strategic leaders as participants is very important to this line of research. We could make direct comparisons regarding the differences of strategic leaders across cultures or nations in terms of observable experience, personality, values, cognitive style, and behaviors. We may also treat culture as a moderating factor to investigate the inuence of strategic leaders on organizational outcomes, which may vary across different cultures. Cross-cultural comparisons within a single study, usually considering culture as a moderator, can also help us differentiate etic from emic leadership. Although the increasing attention on Eastern society has identied some different manifestations of leaders characteristics, we still do not have studies to explain the role of culture. For example, in the West, scholars have put much effort into studying the characteristic of narcissism (e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2009; Galvin, Balkundi, et al., 2010), whereas humility is a characteristic more salient in Eastern society. Scholars have already begun to pay attention to the characteristic of humility (e.g. Morris et al., 2005). Nevertheless, we are aware of no research that has addressed the basic question of whether Western leaders exhibit more narcissistic behaviors than their Eastern counterparts. Moreover, we still need to know whether narcissistic leadership is more effective than humble leadership in Western society, and vice versa. To date, many of our answers to these questions are from observations; yet they lack empirical support. In the future, we encourage testing the impact of both narcissism and humility in various cultural contexts, and only through such actual cross-cultural comparisons, can we accurately answer these basic questions. 8.2. Indigenous study of strategic leaders Another area of research related to the role of culture is indigenous studies. It is necessary and promising to conduct indigenous studies in a specic culture and further to identify new important executive characteristics in order to understand the role of culture. Leaders, especially executive leaders, usually show complex characteristics or behaviors. However, in the past few decades, only the characteristics or behaviors that are prominent in the Western society, or emanating out of Western management theories, have been paid sufcient attention. For example, charismatic leadership (e.g., House, 1977; Simonton, 1987) and transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1997) have dominated leadership research for quite a long time. Both styles rely on individual charisma and inspiration. The popularity of these kinds of leadership studies is deeply rooted in the prototype of a leader in Western society. However, how do people dene and perceive a leader or a leaders roles in other cultures? Using strict experimental studies, Menon, Sim, Fu, Chiu, and Hong (2010) demonstrated that American leaders are more likely to stand ahead of groups, while Asian leaders are more likely to stand in the middle or behind groups. In other words, American leaders lead through vision or charisma while Asian leaders lead through control or participation.

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

577

The results of this study do not necessarily imply that charismatic leadership or transformational leadership, where leaders usually stand ahead, is not effective in Eastern society. Yet it does call for some attention to different leadership denitions and leaders roles in different cultures. Conducting indigenous studies in other cultures is an ideal way to nd overlooked leader characteristics, making leadership theory more complete and much richer. Indigenous studies in a specic culture could also serve as the base for conducting cross-cultural research (e.g., Avolio, 2007). Moreover, these indigenous studies can trigger deeper thinking on the origin of certain leadership characteristics or behaviors. For example, many Eastern leadership studies are based on Confucianism and the Art of the War (Feng, 2007), both helping us understand the emergence of indigenous, Eastern leadership characteristics. In short, it may be possible to learn new ways of managing from indigenous studies based on Eastern traditions or thinking that could be applied to a Western context. We note that this theme is actually the focus of an upcoming special issue of the Academy of Management Journal. 8.3. Emergence and development patterns of strategic leaders To understand strategic leadership better, it is interesting and promising to conduct research on how strategic leaders emerge and develop from different countries. This line research could trace the socio-economic environments inuencing the emergence of strategic leaders, as well as the reasons that lead to their successes and failures. We need to know what kinds of individuals, in terms of observable experience and personal characteristics variables, are more likely to become leaders in different cultures, what kinds of leaders are more likely to survive and adapt to different environments, and the types of strategic leaders that are more likely to be considered successful by their followers in different countries. For example, we may introduce the perspective of followership into the cross-cultural strategic leadership research. Hollander (1978) once dened leadership as the union of leaders, followers, and situations, from which we can see the signicant role of followers. Culture not only directly inuences leadership prototypes or leadership effectiveness, but it can also indirectly generate impact through followers. On the one hand, followers differ across cultures in their preference and stereotypes of leaders (Earley, 1984). Such preferences and stereotypes may greatly shape leaders characteristics. For example, DeRue and Ashford (2010) have suggested that the leaders identity cannot be developed without collective endorsement. On the other hand, the contingency model of leadership includes numerous moderating factors related to followers such as their loyalty, support, cooperation with leaders (Fiedler, 1967); experience, skills, and condence (House, 1971); and maturity level (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Followers may show systematic differences across cultures, and these differences can inuence the effectiveness of leadership. For example, Chinese people respect authority (Begley & Tan, 2001), and therefore followers in the leader-member exchange relationship may show more obedient behaviors. It is quite possible that such conformity will make coercive or control behaviors more effective in China. Future research on the emergence and development patterns of strategic leaders through different societal and environmental factors, as well as different followers, is important to understanding the phenomenon of strategic leadership, especially from the perspective of cross-cultural research. The conguration of these factors identied across different cultures or nations will be helpful to understand the emphasis and key factors of strategic leadership from different cultures. It should be also benecial in terms of unfolding the nature of strategic leaders. The variables that could

be used to conduct this type of research are also very rich. Sources could include books, cases, and documents on successful CEOs. Content analysis could be employed to identify the developmental patterns of these strategic leaders. 8.4. Multiple-level research on strategic leadership One possible frontier in the future is to conduct cross-cultural strategic leadership research at multiple levels. This is an effective way to enrich existing theories of leadership. For example, by examining individualized consideration at three different levels, Avolio and Bass (1995) successfully extended Basss 1985 theory (Bass, 1985) of transformational leadership. Multiple-level research on strategic leadership will be helpful for us to understand the mechanism through which strategic leadership may impact organizational outcomes. Strategic leadership studies are inherently multi-level in nature. Although the upper-echelons model was originally more focused on the individual level (single executive), over time, many scholars have focused on the TMT as whole in terms of the level of analysis (e.g., Cannella & Holcomb, 2005). Further, executive leaders or TMTs can generate multi-level impact across hierarchical echelons. For example, Waldman and Yammarino (1999) and Galvin, Balkundi, et al. (2010) proposed models suggesting that the CEOs charisma can inuence both close and distant followers, and such an inuence is necessary to ensure outcomes at multiple levels including individual and group effort, group cohesion, employees attitudes, stakeholders responses, and nancial performance at the rm level. Strategic leadership research at multiple levels of analysis, especially focusing on the mediators and moderators between strategic leaders and organizational outcomes, will be important in terms of exploring the black box of leadership effects. Through such research, we will have a better understanding of the mechanisms of how and when strategic leaders have an impact on organizational outcomes in terms of nancial performance, employee attitudes towards organizations, and responses from different stakeholders. 8.5. Further methodological issues This emerging eld will require more cutting-edge and rigorous methods in the future. For a long time, cross-cultural studies have been criticized by simply using a nation as a proxy for culture (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Indeed, most existing studies on this theme have used this method. In the future, we suggest two directions that may potentially address this issue. First, researchers might use cultural dimensions, rather than nations, as antecedents or moderators. The most ideal way is to conduct the research in a cultural contact situation. For example, we might do research involving a joint venture in which the top management team includes members from different cultures. Second, we should pay more attention to mediating processes and make clear what the inuencing mechanism is. This will help us identify which factors in this process are more likely to be inuenced by culture. For example, statistical techniques have matured to the point of being able to integrate mediation and moderation simultaneously (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). In strategic leadership studies, some of the largest challenges pertain to data collection and measurement. To date, there are two ways that we can obtain data from executives. One is the surveybased approach, such as the one used in large projects like GLOBE. The other is the coding approach relying on media or other public materials. In the future, we suggest more diverse methods to collect data and measure leadership characteristics. For example, researchers

578

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580

might code the characteristics of executives from other sources, including their blogs and twitter messages, which are instant and perhaps more credible. A more creative direction is to link leadership theory to bioscience or neuroscience. Some initial studies have already shown the importance of this direction. For example, based on a sample of female twins, Chaturvedi, Arvey, Zhang, and Christoforou (in press) found that 49% of the variance in transformational leadership can be explained by genetic factors. De Neve, Mikhaylov, Dawes, Christakis, and Fowler (2011) even demonstrated that leadership is associated with rs4950, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SMP) residing on a neuronal acetylcholine receptor gene CHRNB3. This is the rst study that identies specic genotypes that may be linked to leadership, and there is great room for further studies in this direction. As another example, using quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) technology, Waldman, Balthazard, and Peterson (2011) and Balthazard, Waldman, Thatcher, and Hannah (in press) have recently demonstrated differences regarding brain activity among transformational and inspiring leaders. In sum, the work of Arvey and colleagues, as well as Waldman and colleagues, has considered leadership from quite original perspectives and may offer us new insight to understand cross-cultural strategic leadership. Strategic leadership, especially from the cross-cultural perspective is a promising research area and deserves further attention from scholars. Not only the issues listed above deserve research, but other topics may be relevant as well. This kind of research will be helpful to understand the mechanisms by which strategic leaders inuence organizational outcomes. However, there is only limited research on cross-cultural comparisons with regard to strategic leadership in the literature. We call on scholars to conduct strategic leadership across different cultures or nations to enrich our understanding of effective leadership.

Finally, our work would suggest that it may be a time to rethink a common perspective about the transfer of learning in terms of best managerial practices between the West and East. Specically, heretofore, the common paradigm has been for Eastern leaders (e.g., Chinese) to attempt to derive effective managerial practice based on what we know about managerial effectiveness in the West. In other words, the knowledge transfer regarding best practices was unidirectional from West to East. However, in a more global environment, it may also be possible for Western managers to learn or reconsider their practices based on Eastern thought. For example, as stated previously, dealing with paradoxes is a universal challenge for managers, and has been recognized as such by both Western and Eastern writers. Nevertheless, the embracing of paradoxes may be something that is more natural to Eastern managers based on tradition and culture, and thus, it may behoove Western managers to attempt to learn from their Eastern counterparts. Overall, the two-way interplay or knowledge sharing of best managerial practices between the East and West can only serve to strengthen organizations in the increasingly global environment of the 21st century.

References
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507525. Akaah, I. P., & Lund, D. (1994). The inuence of personal and organizational values on marketing professionals ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 417430. Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theorybuilding. American Psychologist, 62: 2533. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 199218. Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. Differentiating transformational and non-transformational leaders on the basis of neurological imaging. Leadership Quarterly, in press. Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1989). Managers, values, and executive decisions: An exploration of the role of gender, career stage, organizational level, function, and the importance of ethics, relationships and results in managerial decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 747771. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18: 1931. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52: 130139. Bateman, T. S., ONeill, H., & Kenworthy-URen, A. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of top managers goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 11341148. Begley, T. M., & Tan, W. L. (2001). The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship: A comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 32: 537553. Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and rm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 615633. Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2009). Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities. Journal of World Business, 44: 336346. Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). CEOs cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 437457. Cannella, A. A., & Holcomb, T. R. (2005). A multi-level analysis of the upper-echelons model. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Multilevel issues in strategy and method (pp. 197238). Oxford: JAI-Elsevier Science. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Its all about me: Narcissistic chief executive ofcers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 351386. Chaturvedi, S., Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., & Christoforou, P. T. Genetic underpinnings of transformational leadership: the mediating role of dispositional hope. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, in press. Chen, C., & Sun, J. H. (2008). Entrepreneurs demographic characteristics and their diversied strategic options. Management World, 5: 124138 (in Chinese). Child, J. (1974). Managerial and organizational factors associated with company performance part I. Journal of Management Studies, 11: 175189. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap. . .and others dont. New York: Jim Collins. Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through leadership of organizational learning. In N. Bontis (Ed.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 711723). New York: Oxford University Press. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the rm. New Jersey: PrenticeHall.

9. Managerial relevance Our paper also has managerial implications. The ndings summarized and future research directions raised here are important for the strategic leaders of organizations, especially those who are from multinational corporations (MNCs). Specically, our paper can provide insight for executives in terms of rethinking their leadership behavior in an increasingly global context. On the basis of our review, strategic leaders personal characteristics including observable and psychological aspect will differently impact the rms across nations. According to Caligiuri and Tarique (2009), global leaders play an important role in developing competitive advantages, and MNCs increasingly use global leaders to expand overseas business. Therefore, the selection and promotion of global leaders become a critical challenge for MNCs. Based on our ndings, the selection and promotion systems of MNCs should address numerous factors relevant to individual leaders, including observed personal experiences, personalities, values, and cognitive styles. It is important to identify characteristics of leaders who may perform well across diverse cultures, as well as of those who may be most suitable to specic cultural environments. In addition, leadership effectiveness at strategic level is contingent to cultures. Thus, executives should adjust their leadership behaviors and styles when exposed to different cultural backgrounds. Correspondingly, executive training and development programs should be designed to help executives gain such knowledge on cultural differences and the nature of specic strategic leadership behaviors that would t in specic cultures. As suggested by Waldman et al. (2011), in the near future, we may even begin to see neuroscience-based applications to the development of global leaders.

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580 Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M. A., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team characteristics and corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management Review, 20: 138170. Dearborn, D. W. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identications of executives. Sociometry, 21: 140144. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35: 627647. De Neve, J., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2011). Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership. Working paper series. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management (pp. 127150). New York: JAI Press. Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8: 233274. Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 279295. Earley, P. (1984). Social interaction: The frequency of use and valuation in the United States, England and Ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15: 477485. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 122. England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal, 10: 5368. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 94127). London: Macmillan. Feng, H. (2007). Chinese strategic culture and foreign policy decision-making: Confucianism, leadership and war. New York: Routledge. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484503. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN West Publishing. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership. New York: Oxford University Press. Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 309330. Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 222254. Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of inuence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 251266. Galvin, B. M., Balkundi, P., & Waldman, D. A. (2010). Spreading the word: The role of surrogates in charismatic leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 35: 477494. Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63: 509537. Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of cultures consequences: The effects of cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 615634. Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and rm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 844863. Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Guest editors introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1): 5L 15. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334343. Hambrick, D. C., & Brandon, G. L. (1988). Executive values. In D. C. Hambrick & S. Finkelstein (Eds.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 334). Greenwich: JAI Press. Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30: 472491. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193206. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). Whats the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 11991228. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. New York: Prentice-Hall. Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 297319. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7: 8194. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstedes culture dimensions. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 15: 417433.

579

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York: Free Press. Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cognition, 19: 181196. Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43: 263273. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321339. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23: 409473. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37: 310. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 364396. Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. (2004). Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demographic preferences and structural differences shape the scope of the rm. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 507524. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751765. Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture: A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2: 318. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 13141344. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23: 325340. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8: 122. Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 794813. Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and rm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 4568. Ling, W. Q. (1991). Leadership in the PRC. In Z. F. Yang & S. R. Gao (Eds.), Chinese and Chinese soul (pp. 409448). Taiwan: Yuan Liu. (in Chinese). Lloyd, G. E. R. (1990). Demystifying mentalities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Who makes acquisitions? CEO overcondence and the markets reaction. Journal of Financial Economics, 89: 2043. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization. New York: Wiley. McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22: 6779. Menon, T., Sim, J., Fu, J. H. Y., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2010). Blazing the trail versus trailing the group: Culture and perceptions of the leaders position. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113: 5161. Miller, D., & Toulouse, J. M. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small rms. Management Science, 32: 13891409. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402433. Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. F. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese research program. The University of Michigan Press. Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58: 1323 1350. Musteen, M., Barker, V. L., III, & Baeten, V. L. (2006). CEO attributes associated with attitude toward change: The direct and moderating effects of CEO tenure. Journal of Business Research, 59: 604612. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108: 291310. Ou, A. Y. (2011). CEO humility and its relationship with middle manager behaviors and performance: Examining the CEO-middle manager interface. Doctoral dissertation. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54: 741754. Peters, T. (1991). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Harper-Perennial. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562578. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185227. Punnett, B. J. (1994). Preliminary considerations of Confucianism and needs in the PRC. Journal of Asia-Pacic Business, 1: 2542. Redding, G., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational behaviour. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 267 295). New York: Oxford University Press.

580

H. Wang et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 571580 Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Leadership and neuroscience. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25: 6074. Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, N., Barrasa, A., et al. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 823837. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134143. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 17031725. Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-ofmanagement and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24: 266285. Walsh, J. P. (1988). Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers belief structures and information processing. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 873896. Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 10831101. Wang, H., & Huang, M. P. (2011). The dialectic thinking style of Chinese strategic leaders and its effects on rm performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the academy of management. Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 92105. Wang, H., Xin, R., & Tsui, A. S. (2006). The effect of CEO leadership on rm performance in China enterprises. Management World, 4: 8796 (in Chinese). Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for paternalistic headship among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18: 445480. Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.), Organizational behavior: A Southeast Asian perspective (pp. 123139). Hong Kong: Longman. Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. (2005). CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 859873. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45: 575600. Young, G. J., Charns, M. P., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and network effects on the adoption of innovative management practices: A study of TQM in a public hospital system. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 935951. Zhang, D., & Chen, Z. (1991). Zhong Guo Si Wei Pian Xiang. [The orientation of Chinese thinking style]. Beijing: Social Science Press. (in Chinese).

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic inuence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 13651381. Rodrigues, C. A. (1990). The situation and national culture as contingencies for leadership behavior: Two conceptual models. Advances in International Comparative Management: A research Annual, 5: 5168. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46: 387452. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 165. Shao, L., & Webber, S. (2006). A cross-cultural test of the ve-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research, 59: 936944. Silverthorne, C. (2001). Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross cultural evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 30: 303309. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 125134. Simon, H. A., & Barnard, C. I. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: The Free Press. Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven: Yale University Press. Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 653662. Sinha, J. B. (1980). The nurturant-task leader: A model of the effective executive. New Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381403. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522536. Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 1: 113. Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, L., & Fu, P. P. (2004). Variation of leadership styles among Chinese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 33: 520. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33: 426478. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515541. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29: 222240.