Different countries have a various range of cultures that they experience and follow, each culture following a different set of rules, therefore a various range of leadership styles develop that are tailored to those cultures as well as the people in the country. In this essay, I will be looking at the cultural dimensions of 2 countries, Iran and Saudi Arabia, such as masculinity and femininity, high and low power distance, and individualism and collectivism. As well as the effectiveness of each dimension when paired with leadership styles such as supportive, charismatic, participative, and directive leadership as well as contingent punishment and contingency reward.
Firstly, I will be looking at the different dimensions of both leadership and culture and describing them and what they entail, starting with leadership styles. Supportive leadership is a leadership style where a manager does not simply delegate tasks and receive results but instead supports an ‘employee’ until the task’s completion [1]. A major upside to supportive leadership is that the manager will work with the employee until he or she is empowered and skilled enough to handle tasks with minimal supervision in the future. A disadvantage however could be that a leader who is viewed as a friend and seeks that validation might have trouble reprimanding or holding a team member accountable for meeting goals.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
On the other hand, directive leadership is one of the most common styles of leadership that is used today. The directive leader will initiate a project, give responsibilities to their direct reports to complete the project and apply specific standards to the quality of work being completed. These leaders set deadlines, define tasks, and exercise firm rules and boundaries. A directive leader tends to focus on their own experiences and opinions above others. They set the direction of the vision and the mission. That means their direct reports are not required to offer suggestions or provide feedback to the leader. Their work performance is solely judged by how well they are performing their assigned tasks. Unfortunately, directive leadership is only effective when the leader is present in the environment. If the leader is not present, productivity levels will often plummet. There is no desire for self-motivation because the tasks are based on the direction and supervision of the leader. Even if the directive leader appoints someone to take their place, the team often responds negatively because they are not used to any form of delegation [2].
Participative leadership is a method of leadership that involves all team members in terms of identifying important goals as well as developing strategies and procedures to achieve the goals. From this point of view, the participative style of leadership can be perceived as a leadership style that relies primarily on functioning as a facilitator rather than one who simply issues commands or orders or makes assignments for each member of the team. Participative leaders also increase the range of possibilities for a certain team. When leadership styles that significantly leave the entire decision-making and direction in one person, it is somewhat difficult to see a different angle. So, if the leadership encourages other members to be involved in the process of decision-making, a given course of action can be seen or approached in different perceptions. It can also point out the strengths and weaknesses of certain approaches and can be resolved by the team working hand in hand to come out with the best decision for them.
Moreover, the downside of participative leadership is the aspect of time. This style of leadership usually engages the requirement of time before a certain action is taken. On the other hand, this is just the natural side of the participative style of leadership, which allows every team member to have an input. In addition, the extra time required for this process usually leads to a decision that eventually benefits every team member. This is ideally best for your team or organization to be effective.
Linking in with the latter paragraph, charismatic leadership is the method of encouraging behaviors in others by way of eloquent communication, persuasion, and force of personality. Charismatic leaders motivate followers to get things done or improve the way certain things are done. This is accomplished by conjuring up eagerness in others to achieve a stated goal or vision. The charismatic leadership style has its basis in the form of heroism. This type of leadership is very much compatible with low power distance and collectivist cultures and countries as they're about encouraging and working with people rather than having them work for you. As previously mentioned, charismatic leaders are extremely skilled communicators. One of the advantages of charismatic leadership is the ability of these leaders to articulate a captivating or compelling vision. They can evoke strong emotions in their followers as well.
The last leadership styles I will be looking at in this essay will be contingent punishment and contingent reward. Contingency rewards are usually rewards for reaching specific goals.
Benefits include short-term motivation which does not require much motivational skills to instil. As long as rewards are provided. However, it is also very dangerous. The effect wears out over time and it requires continuity of new goals and rewards to keep motivation high. It can also create tensions between people if goals aren’t pointed in the same direction or if benefits aren’t experienced as being fair. More widely, the effects of contingency rewards management will change an organization to become an organization focused on high individual results but with low teamwork focus and intense performance pressures which can increase the outflow of employees. So, it can work effectively in the short term, but it is very dangerous and poisonous for an organization if done incorrectly.
I will be pairing these leadership styles with cultural dimensions such as power distance. Power distance is a term that describes how people belonging to a specific culture view power relationships - superior/subordinate relationships - between people, including the degree to which people not in power accept that power is spread unequally. Individuals in cultures demonstrating a high power distance are very deferential to figures of authority and generally accept an unequal distribution of power, while individuals in cultures demonstrating a low power distance readily question authority and expect to participate in decisions that affect them.
Another dimension is collectivism and individualism. In individualistic value orientation, people are primarily concerned about themselves and their immediate family. In collectivistic value orientation, people's major concern is their community. Collectivists see humans this way: In the most common left-wing variant today, “social democracy,” the society is like a beehive with its interests. Thus, social democrats think it is often appropriate for the society’s leadership to punish any individuals who disagree with the “will of the people,” or who will not sufficiently contribute to what the leaders/majority deems to be the “good of society.”
The final cultural dimension is femininity and masculinity. This dimension focuses on how extent to which a society stresses achievement or nurture. Masculinity is seen to be the trait that emphasizes ambition, acquisition of wealth, and differentiated gender roles. Femininity is seen to be the trait that stresses caring and nurturing behaviors, environmental awareness, and more fluid gender roles. Hofstede's definition is: “Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.”
“Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” From Hofstede (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. p 297.
Looking at Iran first, the country has scored an intermediate score of 58 on the dimension of power distance, showing that people accept a hierarchical order that needs no further justification or questioning. Power distance deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. [3]
Compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia scores 95 on this dimension [4], showing that most of the country's power lies with the royal family and nobles. We could use this information to say that the leadership styles most compatible with Saudi based on power distance alone would be directive leadership as it is dependent on hierarchy, as well as supportive leadership as it is effective across all cultures.
Whereas looking at a different cultural dimension such as individualism and collectivism, Iran has the highest score, with a below-average score of 41 [5] Collectivism is a cultural value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over self. People or groups that are part of a collectivist view tend to find common values and goals particularly important. Leadership styles following the high collectivism rate would be participative, charismatic, and supportive leadership as countries who have a higher collectivism rate seem to care more personally about the people in the community, therefore they will be more open to contingency reward and punishment as it will help them work towards their collective goal.
Saudis' high collectivism rate contradicts the high power distance of the country, with the collectivism rate being 79 and the individualism taking the remaining 21 out of 100. This means that certain leadership styles such as those effective in Iran would not have the same impact or effect because of the other contributing factor, the extremely high power distance as these two seem to cancel each other out, with high power distance and individualism methodically go hand in hand and the same with low power distance and collectivism as they seem to share the same ideology and ethics. Therefore, the most effective leadership style so far in Saudi Arabia is directive leadership as it takes the majority.
Iran’s low individualism, however, is compatible with the lower power distance as the high collectivism rate links to the aforementioned leadership styles such as charismatic and supportive leadership, etc, further leading to more productiveness and success when it comes to Iran’s economic climate.
So when analyzing the effects of culture on leadership styles it is easy to see that high power distance and individualism can be associated with directive leadership and contingent punishment as it is mostly used by more conservative or strict leaders such as in Saudi Arabia as visible by the current political climate whereas Low power distance and collectivism are more effective when you use charismatic and participative leadership styles as well as a contingent reward as they are based upon more nurturing and caring styles of leaderships and the individuals that use these methods tend to be more compassionate and loved by their followers.
Stuck on your essay?
