A Cross-cultural Map of Leadership Competencies

Managing People across Cultures

A CROSS-CULTURAL MAP OF LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

María José Bosch*

Pablo Cardona**

CCMN***

* Doctoral Student, IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. Email: [email protected] ** Associate Professor, IESE Business School. Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. ***Prof. César Bullara, Instituto Superior de Empresa (ISE), Säo Paulo, Brasil. Prof. Mª Victoria Caparas. University of Asia & the Pacific School of Management, Manila, Philippines. Prof. Alexey Svishchev, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. Prof. Michael Morley, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Prof. Sadia Nadeem, University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan. Ph.D. Student Wei He, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT

Many authors have developed different models of competencies. These models try to

understand which competencies are related to better performance, but most of them

were developed locally. This paper tries to find measures of managerial competencies

that are reliable across cultures in order to develop a cross cultural map of leadership

competencies. Based on Cardona and Garcia’s framework (2005) we measure

leadership competencies for different cultural regions, including the following

countries: Brazil, China, Spain, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia and Ireland. We found

reliable competencies measures across cultures. We identify three competency

dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. Finally we develop a map of

leadership profiles and evaluate those profiles for different cultures.

-2-

James MacGregor Burns (1978) suggests that leadership is one of the most observed

and least understood phenomena on earth. It is difficult to find a single definition of

leadership because there are different approaches in this field (Antonakis, Cianciolo, &

Sternberg, 2004). One of these approaches started at the beginning of the 20th century

by looking at the traits of the leader (Mann, 1959; McClelland, 1976; Stogdill, 1948).

This research stream evolved into an analysis of a richer set of different leadership traits

such as cognitive abilities, personality, motivations, social appraisal skills and

competencies (Bass, 1990; Boyatzis, 1982; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; McClelland, 1961;

Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991; Zaccaro et al., 1997).

Competencies were initially defined as behaviors that make leaders effective in their

job performance (Boyatzis, 1982). In the sixties, McClelland developed the Job

Competence Assessment method (McClelland, 1961), but it was Boyatzis, with his

book “The Competent Manager” (Boyatzis, 1982), who set the basis for the field. In the

nineties, Spencer and Spencer (1993) made another important contribution to the study

of competencies, developing a Competency Dictionary and a Generic Competency

Model that included specific competencies for different members of the organization.

In the last 10 years, many authors have developed different models of competencies

(Graf, 2004; Harvey & Novicevic, 2005; Kellerman, 2007; Lawler, 1994; Lobel, 1990;

Madlock, 2008; McLagan, 1980; McLagan, 1997; Tubbs, 2004, 2006; Yorkovich,

Waddell, & Gerwig, 2007). Most of these models were developed locally and it is

questionable whether they are applicable across different cultural contexts. Although

one can find studies based on management behavior in different cultures, they mainly

focus on cultural dimensions rather than competency dimensions (Javidan, Dorfman,

Sully de Luque, & House, 2006; Yan & Hunt, 2005). In this paper, our objective is to

-3-

find measures of managerial competencies that are reliable across cultures in order to

develop a cross cultural map of leadership competencies.

COMPETENCIES BACKGROUND

A. Different Competency Models

The term competency was first proposed in the sixties by McClelland (1961). He

proposed that personality could be studied from three perspectives: traits, values and

schemas, and motives (McClelland, 1956). From the traits perspective he analyzed

different traits of a person: movement traits, cognitive traits, emotional traits and

performance traits. From the value and schemas perspective he proposed that

personality can be distinguished via three factors: evaluations, activity and potency.

These factors represent a framework for the study of concepts related to the self. Finally

from the motivational perspective, he shows that greater motive strength facilitates

performance and learning. After this study of personality, McClelland related the

growth of society to the motive of the “need for achievement” and introduced the term

competency by developing the Competency Assessment Process. This process consists

in identifying outstanding and average performers, interviewing a sample from among

them, and conceptualizing the competencies that differentiate these two groups. After

this, it is necessary to find or develop measures to differentiate good performers from

average performers. Finally these measures have to be applied to a new group to see if

it can differentiate the good performers from the average ones. This study is based on

his previous work on personality.

Boyatzis (1982) defined competency as an “underlying characteristic of a person which

results in effective and/or superior performance in a job” (p. 21). He focused on the

-4-

effective performance of a job. Boyatzis proposed a model where an individual’s

competencies, job demands and organizational environment are interconnected. The

effect of this interconnection produces effective performance. He based his study only

on the managers’ competencies by analyzing their motives, traits, self-concept,

knowledge and skills. He proposed a model with two dimensions: the first dimension is

the type of competency and the second dimension is the level of each competency. The

level of each competency is divided into three: first is the unconscious level that is

related to motives and traits; second is the conscious level that is related to the self

image; and the third level is the behavioral level that is related to knowledge and skills.

The purpose of his study was to determine the characteristics of a manager that are

related to effective performance. He divided competencies into two. The first ones are

competencies related to effective and/or superior performance on a job. The second set

is comprised of threshold competencies that are not causally related to superior job

performance (Boyatzis, 1982). Boyatzis found 12 competencies related to managerial

effectiveness; these were: efficiency orientation, proactivity, diagnostic use of concepts,

concern with impact, self-confidence, use of oral presentations, conceptualization, use

of socialized power, managing group process, perceptual objectivity, self control, and

stamina and adaptability. He also found seven threshold competencies: use of unilateral

power, accurate self-assessment, positive regard, spontaneity, logical thought,

specialized knowledge, and developing others.

In the nineties, Spencer and Spencer (1993) defined competencies as underlying

characteristics of people that generate ways of behaving or thinking across situations,

for a reasonably long period of time. They focused on motives and traits, and developed

a model of competencies for different positions in the organization. Woodrufe (1993)

-5-

defined competency as an observable behavior that contributes to the success of a task

or function. This definition is very useful because it focuses on measurable behaviors.

In the 2000, Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly and Marks proposed a model of skill-based

leadership, which linked competencies with the leadership literature (Mumford,

Zaccaro, Connelly, & Marks, 2000). The model is based on identifying which

competencies are the capabilities that an individual must possess in order to perform

effectively as a leader in an organization. The model proposes that a leader’s

performance is based on three types of skills: complex problem-solving skills, solution

construction skills, and social judgment skills. Mumford et al. refer to these skills that

produce effective performance, as underlying characteristics of a person, the same

definition that Boyatzis uses for competencies. The model propositions are five: the first

proposition is that these skills can be measured. The second is that they will predict a

leader’s performance. The third proposition is that each skill should make a unique

contribution. The fourth is that these skills are related to experience; and the fifth

proposition is that these skills are related to underlying characteristics of the individual.

The findings of this study were that patterns of abilities, motives and personality

characteristics that are associated with higher skills and knowledge have a positive

relationship with the leader’s performance.

In the late 1990s, Cardona and Chinchilla proposed a more precise definition of

competencies as “observable and habitual behaviors” (Cardona & Chinchilla, 1999).

This definition introduces the condition of repeated behaviors, also known as habits. If a

person only demonstrates a specific behavior but for only a short period of time or for

only a few times over a long period of time, this does not mean that this person has fully

developed that competency.

-6-

Later Cardona and Garcia (2005) developed a map of the main leadership competencies,

structured in three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. This model is

explained in more detail further in the paper. Each of these dimensions has some

underlying competencies that are shown in table 1.

--------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 around here

---------------------------------------

Most recently, competencies have been associated with Emotional Intelligence

(Boyatzis & Goleman, 2006; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Seal, Boyatzis, &

Bailey, 2006). Certain authors have suggested that emotional intelligence is related to

some specific competencies: self awareness, self management, social awareness and

relationship management (Seal et al., 2006). Emotional and social intelligence give a

framework for describing human disposition and helps distinguish behavioral

manifestations from the self and from interpersonal awareness. In the Emotional Social

Intelligence Competency Model, the distinction between the two types of intelligence is

important. On the one hand, Emotional Intelligence contains Self Awareness and Self

Management. On the other hand, Social Intelligence is formed by Social Awareness and

Relationship Management, each one with its underlying competencies (see figure 1).

The model proposes that competencies are developed through a learning process.

--------------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 around here

---------------------------------------

Another field related to the study of competencies is positive psychology. Positive

psychology studies strengths and virtues of people that make them do their best. The

main focus of study is character strength and virtues. It is suggested that both of these

are related to individual well-being, and organizational efficiency and performance

(Wright & Goodstein, 2007). The importance of this for organizations is substantial

-7-

because “individuals who are satisfied with life are good problem-solvers, show better

work performance, tend to be more resistant to stress, and experience better physical

health” p.607 (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Peterson and Seligman propose three

conceptual levels: virtue, strength of character and themes. Virtues are proposed to be

universal and the main subject of study. Character strengths are the mechanisms to

reflect a virtue. Peterson and Seligman’s framework proposes six universal virtues:

Wisdom and Knowledge: creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning and

perspective; Courage: bravery, persistence, integrity and vitality; Humanity: love,

kindness, social intelligence; Justice: citizenship, fairness and leadership; Temperance:

forgiveness and mercy, humility/modesty, prudence and self regulation; and

Transcendence: appreciation of beauty ad excellence, gratitude, hope, humor and

spirituality (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

B. Integration of Competency Models

All the models try to understand which competencies are related to better performance.

Although each model has a different perspective, we can find similarities among them.

The first one is the relationship of the different models with the dimensions proposed by

Boyatzis: type of competency and the level of each competency. This is important not

only because it distinguishes between the effects that a competency has on performance,

but also because it shows that competencies are related to learning and developing

processes.

A second interesting relation among the models is that there is a lot of overlap in the

types of competencies. Among the common concepts utilized are: team work,

proactivity, communication, conflict management, among others. Also the competency

-8-

grouping is similar. For example, in both the Cardona & Garcia model and the

Emotional Intelligence model, they make very similar groupings. Although not all of

them have the same categories, we can distinguish three different dimensions in the

literature: one related to the business, one related to the relationship with others, and

finally related one to the self development of the person. In order to relate the different

models we have constructed a matrix organized by these three dimensions (see appendix

1).

C. Cross Cultural Studies

Recent studies have tried to identify cross cultural leadership characteristics. Javidan et

al. proposed that research on leadership can be focused on cultural universals or cultural

specific characteristics (Javidan et al., 2006). In their study, they focused on how

leaders behave in different cultures.

Javidan et al. propose that individuals from common cultures will share beliefs,

personality characteristics, skills, and behaviors that make successful leaders. They

propose six leadership profiles and show how these leadership profiles are distributed

among the different cultures. The leadership profiles are the following:

Charismatic/value based: this corresponds to a leader who inspires, motivates and

bases high outcome expectations on core beliefs.

Team-oriented: this type of leader promotes team building and implements common

goals among members.

Participative: this leadership type involves others in the decision making process and

implementation.

-9-

Human-oriented: this leader is supportive and reflects compassion and generosity.

Autonomous: this is an independent and individualistic leader.

Self-protective: this leader looks out for individual safety and security.

Another interesting aspect of this study is the proposal of 22 leadership attributes that

are desirable across cultures, and eight leadership attributes that are undesirable across

cultures. They show some examples of these attributes. For universal facilitators of

leadership effectiveness they show the following four groups. 1) Integrity: being

trustworthy, just and honest; 2) Charismatic-visionary: having foresight and planning

ahead; 3) Charismatic-inspirational: being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating,

and building confidence; 4) Team Builder: being communicative, informed, a

coordinator, and team integrator (Javidan et al., 2006).

This study takes an American perspective. It uses a hypothetical case of an American

executive in charge of teams in different countries. It studies global leadership, not

leadership profiles in each country. Besides, Javidan et al. focus on differences across

countries, not on common frameworks to compare leadership profiles across cultures.

THE MODEL

In this paper, managerial competencies will be studied across different cultures. Based

on Cardona and Garcia’s framework, we will measure leadership competencies for

different cultural regions. Analyzing appendix 1 this is a good initial framework

because it includes key competencies in the main dimensions found in the other models.

First, we find reliable competencies measures across cultures. Then, we look for those

-10-

underlying factors that identify competency dimensions. Finally, we develop a map of

leadership profiles and evaluate those profiles for different cultures.

Cardona and Garcia’s framework (2005) is based on three factors: external,

interpersonal and personal. Those dimensions in turn come from an anthropological

model proposed by Peréz López (1993) which distinguishes three talents that are

specific to managers. The first is the Strategic talent, that is, the capacity to develop and

implement strategies that lead to the achievement of good financial results. The second

is the Executive talent, that is, the capacity to develop efficient relationships with

collaborators. And the third is the Personal Leadership talent, that is, the capacity to

build trust and sense of mission among collaborators.

A. Map Structure

These definitions are the foundations for the following three types of management

competencies in Cardona and Garcia’s framework:

External competencies are competencies oriented towards producing the greatest

economic value to the company. These competencies are related to the knowledge of the

business and the use resources that may affect the organizations’ profitability.

Interpersonal competencies are competencies oriented towards building effective

relationships in the organization. These competencies are related to behaviors that

develop employees’ relational capacities and their performance at work.

Personal competencies: are competencies oriented towards developing self-leadership

and manager’s exemplarity and professionalism. They are divided into two factors:

external and internal personal competencies. The external personal competencies refer

-11-

to how the manager reacts to the external environment and stimuli, while the internal

personal competencies are related to the person’s internal decision-making and learning

processes. (Cardona et al., 2005).

This model works well with Spanish managers, but we do not know if it can be applied

across different cultures. Our proposition is that these three levels exist in all cultures.

Each of these dimensions is formed by a group of competencies.

Proposition 1: there is a stable structure of leadership competencies across cultures.

This structure is divided in three dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal.

Based on these three levels, we develop a model of leadership profiles.

B. Leadership Profiles

If the three dimensions are independent, we can develop a map of leadership profiles

that distinguishes eight types of leaders. In table 2, E refers to external competencies, I

interpersonal competencies and P refers to personal competencies. The characteristics

of the eight types of leaders are generated from the dimensions that are represented in

each profile.


---------------------------------------

-12-

The Strategic Leader is strong only in external competencies. This is a leader that

focuses on the task and the action. This leader pays attention on the environment and

considers the consequences of every action. Javidan et al.(2006) proposes a similar

definition for Self-Protective Leader. The Empathetic Leader is strong only in

interpersonal competencies. This leader is focused on the people that work with her,

taking care of interpersonal relationships. She knows how to communicate and delegate

via teamwork. Javidan et al. (2006) propose a similar definition for Participative Leader.

The Reflexive Leader is strong only in personal competencies. This is a person that

develops positive personal habits like discipline, humility and courage. This leader

shows emotional balance. Javidan et al. (2006) propose a similar definition for Human

Oriented Leader. The Charismatic Leader is strong only in external and interpersonal

competencies. This leader has great communication capacity; he not only knows how to

work with people, but also understands the business needs. Javidan et al. (2006) propose

a similar definition for Charismatic/Value-Based Leader. The Visionary Leader is

strong only in external and personal competencies. This is a leader that is characterized

by new and innovative ideas. He promotes change and continuously encourages new

projects. Javidan et al.(2006) propose a similar definition for Autonomous Leader. The

Mentor Leader is strong only in interpersonal and personal competencies. This is a

leader that focuses on individuals and teams, and promotes the development of her

followers and her own well-being. Javidan et al. propose a similar definition for Team

Oriented Leader. The Competent Leader is strong in the three dimensions: external,

interpersonal and personal. She knows the environment, takes care of the relationship

with her followers and pursues a continuous personal improvement. Finally the

Incompetent leader is not strong in any of the three dimensions.

-13-

Proposition 2: There are differences of leadership across cultures. We can categorize

these differences using leadership profiles.

METHODOLOGY

We designed a questionnaire following the test by Cardona and Garcia (2005). From the

150 questions of the original test with 6 items per competence, we selected 75 questions

with three items per competency. The scale used in the questionnaire is a five point

scale from 1 to 5. Two questionnaires were used: one for the manager and another one

for three of their subordinates. Collaborators of the Cross Cultural Management

Network (CCMN) in seven countries translated the test from its original English to their

local language when needed.

Data Gathering

These seven countries were chosen to represent cultural regions proposed by Sagiv and

Schwartz (2007). These authors found seven cultural regions: Latin America,

Confucian, West Europe, Africa and the Middle East, South Asia, East Europe, and

English speaking countries. The final selection of countries included: Brazil, China,

Spain, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia and Ireland, corresponding to the above cultural

regions respectively.

In each country, the collaborator collected data using questionnaires in hard copy or

electronic format. The sample was taken from companies of different sectors. In table 3

we summarize the sample size per country.

-14-


---------------------------------------

Methods and Model Specified

Following Spencer et al (1993), we measured competencies using only the

subordinates’ responses because of two reasons. According to these authors it is

difficult for people to accurately asses their own competencies. The second reason is

that people may not show their real motives and abilities.

In order to find consistent competencies across different countries we map the

competencies with Multidimensional Scaling. After mapping it, we carried out an

exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory structural equation modeling.

First we analyzed which competencies where stable across cultures. Then we run an

exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to find the main dimensions of the model.

RESULTS

A. Map Structure

First, we run an exploratory factor analysis in order to identify consistent dimensions

across countries. From the 75 items of the questionnaire, only 26 showed stability in the

different national samples. We found three main factors, which correspond to the three

dimensions of Cardona and Garcia’s Model: personal, interpersonal and external (see

Table 4).


-15-

---------------------------------------

The first and second dimensions consist of eight items grouped in four competencies

and the third one consists of ten items grouped also in four competencies (see Table 5).


---------------------------------------

The alphas of the competencies and those of the dimensions are shown in Table 6. Most

alphas are above acceptable level for the number of items. Only two alphas are below

0.5: Negotiation in Pakistan and Integrity in Ireland.


---------------------------------------

Second, we mapped the competencies using Multidimensional Scaling with the 26 items

(see Figure 2). In this map we can distinguish three groups that correspond to the three

factors of the exploratory factor analysis. In the external dimension, the two items of the

networking competency are not completely grouped with the other items of the external

dimension.


---------------------------------------

Finally, we run a confirmatory factor analysis for each dimension separately. The results

of the confirmatory factor analysis show a good fit (see Table 7). The personal and

external models have satisfactory indices. This suggests that we can accept networking

as part of the external dimension. The only index that is below acceptance level is the

RMSEA for the interpersonal model. However, for this dimension is lower than

3, and the results of the exploratory factor analysis and the multidimensional scaling are

good. Thus, we accepted the model of the three factors. The differences in factor means

df/2χ

-16-

are significant in a conventional ANOVA test for all three dimensions: external

(F=26.3; P<0.000), interpersonal (F=16.07; P<0.000) and personal: (F=22.14; P<0.000).


---------------------------------------

Once we had the structure of the three dimensions, we run another confirmatory factor

analysis for the complete model (see Figure 3). In order to obtain a number of items

more appropriate with our sample size, we averaged the items per competency. We used

multigroup analysis for testing the model, allowing for differences in means and

variances. The goodness of fit indexes are satisfactory for all groups (Chi square:

738.44; df: 411; RMSEA: 0.079; CFI: 0.944; TLI: 0.937). The correlations among

dimensions are significant (P< 0.000): interpersonal with external (corr=0.239);

personal with external (corr=0.356); personal with interpersonal (corr=0.297).


---------------------------------------


We classified managers as having a particular dimension if his or her score for that

dimension was higher than the average of the country. For example, if a manager has a

higher score than the country average in external and personal dimensions, but not in

the interpersonal one, we classified him or her as a Visionary Leader. Doing this for

every manager, we calculated the percentage of each type of leader in all countries (see

Table 8). After these calculations, we can distinguish four levels of leadership: Level 0

(below average in all dimensions), Level 1 (above average in only one dimension),

Level 2 (above average in two dimensions), and Level 3 (above average in all

dimensions). See Table 9.

-17-

------------------------------------------------ Insert Table 8 and Table 9 around here

-------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION

A. Map Structure

Our results show a three-dimensional model of competencies across cultures. The first

dimension (external) includes competencies related to the knowledge of the business

and the use of resources that may affect the organizations’ profitability. The second

dimension (interpersonal) includes competencies related to the development of effective

relationships with subordinates. The third dimension (personal) includes competencies

related to self-leadership and professionalism. Thus, the results from this study support

our first proposition that there is a stable structure of leadership competencies across

cultures, and that this structure is divided in three dimensions: external, interpersonal

and personal.

In the external dimension, four out of the six original competencies remain consistent

across cultures. The competencies in other dimensions differ more from those in the

Cardona and Garcia’s original framework. The new competencies seem to relate to

categories proposed by other competency frameworks, especially Positive Psychology

and Emotional Intelligence. For example, self-criticism and self-knowledge merged into

a new competency that matches Humility in Positive Psychology. Also, competencies

such as coaching and team work merged into Kindness from the same framework.

On the other hand, only few items of Charisma in Cardona and Garcia’s model showed

consistency across cultures. Since these items match the definition of Inspiration used

-18-

by Goleman and colleagues in Emotional Intelligence (2002), we called the new scale

Inspiration. Finally, the original competency of Self-Control only showed consistency

across cultures in few items that we called Discipline. This competency is related to the

competency Self-regulation in Positive Psychology.

Two competencies changed from the original dimension to a different one. In the final

framework, Integrity belongs to the interpersonal dimension and not to the personal one;

our rationale for this change is that integrity is related to fairness in interpersonal

relations. Also, Inspiration belongs to the personal dimension and not the interpersonal

one; our rational for this change is that, although Inspiration affects the relationships

with others, it is based on a strong sense of personal mission.


Leadership profiles also show interesting findings. The first finding is that leaders are

well distributed through all levels. Secondly, Level 3 is the main group overall and in all

countries except for Brazil, China, and Pakistan. Also, it is somewhat surprising the

amount of Level 0 leaders that we can find in all countries, especially in Pakistan and

Ireland. Finally, in Level 1, the most important profile is the Empathetic Leader. In

Level 2, the most important profile is the Mentor Leader. All these findings support our

Proposition 2 that there are differences of leadership across cultures, and that we can

categorize these differences using leadership profiles.

-19-

One limitation of this study is language. The original questionnaire was written in

English and in many cases translation to local languages was needed. This translation

could have affected the meaning and stability of some questions. Also, we did not

control for origin of organization (national vs. multinational). However, our sample

includes companies from different sectors and origins.

This study has important managerial applications. First, our framework of consistent

competencies across cultures may allow multinational companies to assess leaders from

different countries using a validated tool. Secondly, our map of leadership profiles can

help multinational companies identify the best managers in different cultures, build

effective cross-cultural teams, and develop international careers for their talent. Finally,

our framework may help companies to identify the competencies a candidate should

develop in order to fit better in a new culture.

This research uses subordinate responses to assess leadership competencies. Future

research should analyze differences between self and subordinate assessments, and try

to understand if there are differences across cultures. Also, future research can analyze

gender and age differences in leadership profiles. Finally, future research should study

outcomes of different leadership profiles, such as organizational citizenship behavior,

team performance and job satisfaction.

-20-

References Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. 2004. The Nature of Leadership: Sage Pubns.

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill`s handbook of leadership. New York.

Boyatzis, R. & Goleman, D. 2006. Emotional and Social Competency Inventory. Boston.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance: Wiley.

Burns, J. M. G. 1978. Leadership: Harper & Row New York.

Cardona, P. & Chinchilla, N. 1999. Evaluación y desarrollo de las competencias directivas, Harvard-Deusto Business Review, Vol. 89.

Cardona, P. & Garcia, P. 2005. How to develop Leadership Competences: EUNSA Universidad de Navarra.

Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. 2007. Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8): 1035.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence: Harvard Business School Press.

Graf, A. 2004. Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management(15:6): 1124-1148.

Harvey, M. & Novicevic, M. 2005. The challenges associated with the capitalizations of managerial skills and competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Management(16:8): 1374-1398.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. 2006. In the Eye of the Beholder. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67-90.

Kellerman, B. 2007. What every Leader needs to know about followers, Harvard Business Review.

Kenny, D. A. & Zaccaro, S. 1983. An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 678-685.

Lawler, E. 1994. From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3-15).

Lobel, S. 1990. Gobal Leadership Competencies: Managing to a Different Drumbeat. Human Resource Management, 29(1): 39-47.

-21-

Madlock, P. 2008. The link between leadership style, communicator competence and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1): 61-78.

Mann, R. D. 1959. A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulleting, 56: 241-270.

McClelland, D. C. 1956. Personality. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 7: 39-62.

McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society: Van Nostrand Princeton, NJ.

McClelland, D. C. 1976. Power is the Great Motivator, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 54: 100-110.

McLagan, P. 1980. Competency Model. Training and Development Journal.

McLagan, P. 1997. Competencies: the next generation. Training and Development Journal.

Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. 2000. Leadership skills: conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 11: 155-170.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. 2004. Strenghts of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Socil and Clinical Psychology, 23(5): 603-619.

Pérez López, J. A. 1993. Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. 2004. Character strenghts and virtues: A handbook and classification: New York: Oxford University Press/Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. 2007. Cultural values in organizations: insights for Europe. European J. International Management, 1(3).

Seal, C., Boyatzis, R., & Bailey, J. 2006. Fostering Emotional and Social Intelligence in Organizations. Organizational Management Journal, 3(3): 190-209.

Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness: Free Press New York.

Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. 1993. Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance: Wiley.

Stogdill, R. M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Tubbs, S. 2004. Identifying Global Leadership Competencies: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Setp 2004.

Tubbs, S. 2006. Exploring a Taxonomy of Global Leadership Competencies and Meta-competencies. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 8(2).

-22-

Woodrufe, C. 1993. Assessment Centers: identifying and developing competences. London: Institute Personnel Management.

Wright, T. & Goodstein, J. 2007. Character is not "Dead" in Management Research: A Review of Individual Character and Organizational-Level Virtue. Journal of Management, 33(6): 928-958.

Yan, J. & Hunt, J. G. J. 2005. A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(1): 49.

Yorkovich, S. A., Waddell, G. S., & Gerwig, R. K. 2007. Competency-based Assessment Systems: Encouragement Toward a More Holistic Approach. Northeast Business & Economics Association: 77-81.

Zaccaro, S., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 308-315.

Zaccaro, S., White, L., Kilcullen, R., Parker, C. W., Williams, D., & O`Connor-Boes, J. 1997. Cognitive and temperament predictors of Army civilian leadership. In A. R. I. f. S. a. B. Science (Ed.): Bethesda, MD.

-23-

Table 1: Cardona and Garcia’s map of leadership competencies:

External Interpersonal Business Vision Organizational Vision Customer orientation Resources management Negotiation Networking

Communication Conflict management Charisma Delegation Coaching Team work

Personal External

1) Proactivity Initiative Optimism Ambition 2) Personal management Time Management Information Management Stress Management

Internal 1) Self- improvement Self-criticism Self-knowledge Learning 2) Self management Decision making Self-control Emotional Balance Integrity

-24-

Table 2: Leadership profiles

Strategic Empathetic Reflexive Charismatic Visionary Mentor Competent IncompetentE 0 0 E E 0 E 0 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0 0 0 P 0 P P P 0

Table 3: Sample size per country and culture

Culture Country Nº of subordinates Nº of Managers % of WomenLatin America Brazil 141 47 14.8%

Confucian China 162 54 33.3% West Europe Spain 111 37 10.8%

Africa and the Middle East Pakistan 141 47 17.0% South Asia Philippines 129 43 46.5%

East Europe Russia 156 52 26.9% English speaking Ireland 63 21 23.8%

TOTAL 903 301 25.2%

-25-

Table 4: Factor analysis

----------------------------------------------------------- Variable | Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 | Uniqueness -------------+------------------------------+-------------- item1 | 0.3196 0.1758 0.6029 | 0.5035 item2 | 0.3338 0.1294 0.6178 | 0.4902 item3 | 0.3598 0.2066 0.5498 | 0.5257 item4 | 0.3332 0.1142 0.5858 | 0.5327 item5 | 0.3417 0.2070 0.6076 | 0.4712 item6 | 0.3760 0.2654 0.6030 | 0.4245 item7 | 0.0666 0.1292 0.7335 | 0.4409 item8 | 0.0704 0.1930 0.6786 | 0.4974 item9 | 0.2469 0.7492 0.0976 | 0.3682 item10 | 0.2240 0.6940 0.1791 | 0.4361 item11 | 0.1888 0.6942 0.2600 | 0.4148 item12 | 0.1335 0.7160 0.0890 | 0.4616 item13 | 0.1913 0.6936 0.0741 | 0.4768 item14 | 0.2356 0.7256 0.1413 | 0.3980 item15 | 0.2109 0.7341 0.1977 | 0.3775 item16 | 0.2359 0.7156 0.1600 | 0.4067 item17 | 0.6110 0.2288 0.3114 | 0.4774 item18 | 0.6376 0.2205 0.2727 | 0.4705 item19 | 0.6762 0.2702 0.2585 | 0.4030 item20 | 0.5789 0.2731 0.3459 | 0.4707 item21 | 0.5721 0.2248 0.3999 | 0.4622 item22 | 0.6926 0.2538 0.1527 | 0.4326 item23 | 0.7455 0.2807 0.0100 | 0.3653 item24 | 0.6239 0.2857 0.1932 | 0.4917 item25 | 0.6351 0.1946 0.2805 | 0.4800 item26 | 0.6275 0.1869 0.2896 | 0.4874 -----------------------------------------------------------

-26-

-27-

Table 5: Items of each competency

Business Vision My supervisor knows the company’s strengths and the strengths of the competition

My supervisor analyzes the environment to exploit opportunities and detect threats that affect the business

Resource Management

My supervisor takes into account the opportunity cost of the resources that he/she commits

My supervisor monitors the actual productivity of the resources employed and controls any deviations

Negotiation In negotiations, my supervisor is able to win concessions without giving way on matters that are non-negotiable and without souring the relationship

My supervisor is able to quickly win the trust of the parties to the negotiation Networking My supervisor has an influential circle of friends with whom he/she shares

information and contacts

Ext

erna

l Dim

ensi

on

My supervisor tries to cultivate informal relationships with key people in his/her work environment

Integrity My supervisor deals with me honestly My supervisor always tells the truth Communication My supervisor asserts his/her opinions in a convincing way My supervisor expounds the ideas in an organized manner Delegation My supervisor gives his/her people autonomy in their job My supervisor lets me participate in the decision-making Kindness My supervisor actively searches for the well-being of his/her people

Inte

rper

sona

l dim

ensi

on

My supervisor shows concern for the problems of his/her subordinates.

Inspiration My supervisor encourages and inspires his/her people by highlighting the importance and motivating aspects of their work

My supervisor fosters a sense of responsibility and professionalism at work My supervisor bases the relationship with his/her subordinates on trust and

example. Initiative My supervisor promotes improvements in his/her department My supervisor participates actively in generating new ideas for his/her work Humility My supervisor Accepts feedback with an attitude of openness and a desire to

improve My supervisor Accepts his/her responsibility for personal failures, and

apologizes My supervisor Makes a habit of examining his/her own behavior Discipline My supervisor is constant and orderly in his/her work.

Per

sona

l Dim

ensi

on

My supervisor Finishes the tasks he/she begins, despite any difficulties that may arise

Table 6: Cronbach alpha of each competency and dimension

Alpha Factor Item Br Ch Sp Pa Ph Ru Ir Total

Business Vision 0.69 0.71 0.57 0.59 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.70Resource Managements 0.76 0.78 0.58 0.59 0.73 0.70 0.78 0.72

Negotiation 0.74 0.79 0.66 0.49 0.78 0.67 0.68 0.73

External

Networking 0.75

0.81

0.68

0.88

0.76

0.78

0.65

0.76

0.67

0.89

0.73

0.86

0.63

0.85

0.74

0.86

Integrity 0.69 0.84 0.72 0.61 0.83 0.84 0.49 0.77Communication 0.68 0.77 0.70 0.61 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.74Delegation 0.66 0.66 0.57 0.58 0.85 0.69 0.76 0.62

Interpersonal

Kindness 0.78

0.85

0.71

0.92

0.78

0.85

0.58

0.83

0.77

0.91

0.84

0.89

0.77

0.90

0.76

0.90

Inspiration 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.75 0.78 0.85 0.81 0.81Initiative 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.66 0.78 0.86 0.84 0.80Humility 0.84 0.85 0.69 0.61 0.71 0.86 0.82 0.81

Personal

Discipline 0.77

0.82

0.79

0.88

0.83

0.78

0.71

0.76

0.80

0.88

0.85

0.86

0.83

0.84

0.80

0.90

Table 7: Fit measurements

External Interpersonal PersonalChi square 279.5 505.1 620.0df 182 182 311RMSEA 0.065 0.118 0.089CFI 0.959 0.902 0.931TLI 0.956 0.894 0.930

Table 8: Percentage of each profile of leader in each country

Strategic Empathetic Reflexive Charismatic Visionary Mentor Competent IncompetentBrazil 8.5% 19.9% 2.8% 7.1% 10.6% 7.1% 27.0% 17.0%China 4.3% 14.3% 3.7% 9.3% 14.3% 8.7% 26.7% 18.6%Spain 7.2% 10.8% 7.2% 8.1% 6.3% 12.6% 28.8% 18.9%Pakistan 6.4% 6.4% 5.7% 2.8% 4.3% 8.5% 31.2% 34.8%Philippines 10.9% 7.8% 5.4% 3.9% 5.4% 7.0% 41.1% 18.6%Russia 8.3% 7.7% 4.5% 2.6% 8.3% 8.3% 39.1% 21.2%Ireland 3.2% 11.1% 1.6% 4.8% 1.6% 12.7% 34.9% 30.2%TOTAL 7.0% 11.1% 4.4% 5.5% 7.3% 9.3% 32.7% 22.7%

Table 9: Percentage of each profile of leader in each country

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Brazil 17.0% 31.2% 24.8% 27.0%China 18.6% 22.4% 32.3% 26.7%Spain 18.9% 25.2% 27.0% 28.8%Pakistan 34.8% 18.4% 15.6% 31.2%Philippines 18.6% 24.0% 16.3% 41.1%Russia 21.2% 20.5% 19.2% 39.1%Ireland 30.2% 15.9% 19.0% 34.9%TOTAL 22.7% 22.5% 22.0% 32.7%

-29-

Figure 1: Emotional and Social Intelligence competency map:

Emotional Intelligence Social Intelligence I. Self-Awareness III. Social Awareness 1. Emotional Self-Awareness 10. Empathy 2. Accurate Self Assessment 11. Organizational Awareness 3. Self Confidence 12. Service Orientation II. Self Management IV. Relational Management 4. Emotional Self Control 13. Developing Others 5. Transparency 14. Inspirational Leadership 6. Adaptability 15. Influence 7. Achievement Orientation 16. Change Catalyst 8. Initiative 17. Conflict Management 9. Optimism 18. Teamwork and Collaboration

Figure 2: Multidimensional Scaling Map

-31-

Figure 3: Model structured by dimension

External

Business Vision

ResourceManagement

Negotiation

Networking

Integrity

Communication

Delegation

Kindness

Inspiration

Initiative

Humility

Discipline

Item 1Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7Item 8

Interpersonal

Personal

Item 9Item 10

Item 11Item 12Item 13Item 14Item 15Item 16

Item 17Item 18Item 19Item 20Item 21Item 22Item 23Item 24Item 25Item 26

-32-

Appendix 1

Boyatzis Mumford, Zaccaro,

Connelly and Marks Emotional Intelligence Positive Psychology Cardona and Garcia

External Efficiency orientation Diagnostic use of concepts Conceptualization Perceptual objectivity

III. Social Awareness Empathy Organizational Awareness Service Orientation

Business Vision Organizational Vision Customer orientation Resources management Negotiation Networking

Interpersonal Concern with impact Use of oral presentation Use of socialized power Managing group process

3. Social judgment skills IV. Relational Management Developing Others Inspirational Leadership Influence Change Catalyst Conflict Management Teamwork and Collaboration

3. Humanity Love Kindness Social intelligence 4. Justice Citizenship Fairness Leadership

Communication Conflict management Charisma Delegation Coaching Team work

Personal Proactivity Self-confidence Self-control Stamina and adaptability

1. Complex problem-solving skills 2. Solution construction skills

I. Self-Awareness Emotional Self-Awareness Accurate Self Assessment Self Confidence II. Self Management Emotional Self Control Transparency Adaptability Achievement Orientation Initiative Optimism

1. Wisdom and Knowledge Creativity, Curiosity, Open-mindedness, Love of learning, Perspective 2. Courage Bravery, Persistence, Integrity, Vitality 5. Temperance Forgiveness and mercy Humility/modesty Prudence, Self regulation 6. Transcendence Appreciation of beauty and excellence, ,Gratitude, HopeHumor, Spirituality

External 1) Proactivity Initiative, Optimism Ambition 2) Personal management Time Management Information Management Stress Management Internal 1) Self- improvement Self-criticism, Self-knowledge, Learning 2) Self management Decision making, Self-control, Emotional Balance Integrity

-33-

A Cross-cultural Map of Leadership Competencies

Documents

Transcript of A Cross-cultural Map of Leadership Competencies