Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 Trans-Cultura...

Author: Isabelle My Hanh Derungs | Isabelle Derungs-Ruhier

62 downloads 2901 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd i

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd ii

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation Isabelle My Hanh Derungs Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13

Professor, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd iii

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

© Isabelle My Hanh Derungs-Ruhier 2010 Foreword © Maurits van Rooijen 2010 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2010 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–230–28093–9 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne


No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd iv

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM


For women and men who have the courage to make a difference in this world

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd v

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd vi

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Contents

x

List of Exhibits

xi

List of Figures

xii

Acknowledgments

xiii

Foreword

xiv

Prologue

1

1 Introduction 1.1 Leaders and the challenges of the 21st century 1.2 Goals and benefits for readership 1.3 The structure of the book

2 2 3 6

Part I Theories and Definitions 2

Culture 2.1 Culture in times of pluralism of identities 2.2 Culture beyond the container paradigm 2.3 Behavior that is taken for granted 2.4 Cultural change through leadership 2.5 Culture and leadership

3 Leadership 3.1 Two major leadership orientations 3.1.1 Traits of leadership 3.1.2 Behaviors of leadership 3.2 Transformational and transactional leadership 3.3 Leadership and management 3.4 Leadership, power, and ethics 3.5 Leadership competencies

11 11 18 32 38 41 44 44 45 48 52 55 58 62


List of Tables

vii

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd vii

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

4

Contents

Organizational Change and Development 4.1 Organizational culture 4.2 Organizational change and development 4.3 The learning organization 4.4 Leaders – more than just change agents 4.5 From uncertain protection of values to sustainable values creation

68 68 73 84 95 106

5 Trans-Cultural Leadership 5.1 Leadership styles across cultures 5.2 The concept of trans-culture 5.3 Trans-cultural leadership 5.4 Leadership of trans-cultural competence T-COM 5.4.1 The T-Ching process of T-COM 5.4.2 The dimensions of the acquisition of T-COM 5.4.3 The principles and approaches of trans-cultural competence 5.5 Trans-cultural leadership for transformation

119 121 132 138 147 150 153 154 161

Part II Snapshot of Leadership of the 21st Century 6 The Image of Leadership 6.1 Review of related theories 6.2 The scope of aims 6.3 Applied methods and procedures 6.4 Presentation and discussion of the results 6.4.1 Part I: Educational and professional background of the participants 6.4.2 Part II: The relevance of foreign experiences 6.4.3 Part III: Leadership in international/ intercultural fields 6.4.3.1 Trait qualities of leadership 6.4.3.2 Self, others, and perception orientation 6.4.3.3 The would-be leadership 6.4.3.4 Coaching and training in specific difficult situations 6.4.4 Part IV: Open questions and comments 6.4.4.1 Balancing self-perception versus external ascription

169 169 170 172 173 173 173 174 174 174 176


viii

177 178 178

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd viii

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Contents ix

179 179 180 181 182 183

Part III Practice-Based Proposal for Leadership of Transformation 7 Trans-Cultural Leadership Development 7.1 Organizational leadership development as business survival strategy 7.2 Mentoring trans-cultural competence for international outlook 7.3 Establishing a learning environment for trans-cultural growth 7.4 Ensuring learning process for improvement 7.5 Cultural awareness as the process of “out-of-awareness” 7.6 Creation of anchoring and safety 7.7 From self-mastery to collective mastery

189 190 196 201 208 213 218 221

Epilogue

226

Bibliography

230

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

241

Author Index

243

Subject Index

245


6.4.4.2 Accepting the responsibility of leadership 6.4.4.3 Creating an environment of trust and learning 6.4.4.4 Overcoming irritations and difficulties 6.4.4.5 Understanding why they behave as they do 6.4.4.6 Difficult situations – sometimes unsolvable even with coaching 6.5 “Survey can measure neither culture nor leadership”

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd ix

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

Tables 22 46 56 63 78 122 123 210 215


2.1 Geert Hofstede’s Values Scores 3.1 Traits and Attributes of Leadership 3.2 Bennis’s Differentiation between Management and Leadership 3.3 Higgs’ Categories of Leadership Construction 4.1 Weick and Quinn’s Comparison of Episodic and Continuous Change 5.1 Organization Types 5.2 Relationships among Strategic Mode, Organizational Variables and Staffing Orientation 7.1 Learning Process of Trans-Cultural Competence 7.2 Proposed Design of Cultural Awareness Training in International Fields

x

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd x

10/5/2010 10:14:28 AM

2.1 2.2a 2.2b 2.3 4.1 5.1 7.1 7.2 7.3

Cultural Relativism and Cultural Universalism Hall’s Concept of Time Hall’s Concept of the Relevance of Context Lewin’s Three Stages of Change Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the Response of Leadership Development Nicolas Hayek – a Living Example of Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation The ROI of Leadership and Coaching: Three Key Insights for Value Creation The Technique of Questions Lifelong Learning (LLL) for Values Creation

12 27 28 37 88 164 195 200 206


Exhibits

xi

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xi

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM

Figures

4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Hofstede’s Onion Schein’s Model Hersey’s Situational Leadership Model Cultural Paradigm Shift through Transformation of Value System 7-S Model The Continuum of Leadership Behavior Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation The T-Ching process of T-COM – preparation The T-Ching process of T-COM – performance The T-Ching process of T-COM – manifestation Dimensions of the acquisition of T-COM Chinese Listening Leadership Development Strategy Mentoring Trans-Cultural Leadership Continual Improvement of Mastery Trans-Cultural Leadership from Self-Mastery toward Collective Mastery

30 33 49 114 116 130 140 151 152 152 154 182 194 199 208 223


2.1 2.2 3.1 4.1

xii

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xii

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM

This book is the modified version of the dissertation of EMBA IMC (International Management Consulting®) awarded by the University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland and the University of Applied Sciences Ludwigshafen am Rhein in Germany in 2010. Thanks go to both universities and the partner universities in Lincoln (UK) and Beijing (China). Within this context, an online survey was conducted with the EvaSys Management Tool provided by Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland, where I work as professor. I would like to thank Lucerne University and especially Anita Holdener from Learning Media Service for making the data collection possible. Thanks to all the survey’s participants, CEOs and managers at all levels and from different parts of the world, for taking the time to fill in the questionnaire with great care and constructive feedback. Special acknowledgement goes to Maurits van Rooijen for taking precious time to write the foreword and for being a good example of leadership. Without the support of my family, My Dung, My Ngoc, Daniel S., Daniel R., and my closest friends, this book would not have been completed. My extended gratitude goes to Anny Hefti, John Kidner, Irene Mackay, Daniel Ruhier, and Barry Simon, who sacrificed their New Year’s Eve to proofread the draft of this book. A special thank you to my husband, Kurt Derungs, for encouraging me to keep my vision. My admiration goes to my grandmother for having the courage to lead her family as a young widow through times of war and deprivation to wealth and peace and being an excellent example of taking risks to improve her situation. She modeled the way for many of us. Finally, I would like to say thank you to all my supervisors and colleagues, especially to Feigenkaktus, and also friends and leaders, who have inspired and supported me in different ways.


Acknowledgments

xiii

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xiii

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM

Foreword

In modern society leadership is still an easily misunderstood concept. Gone are the days when a leader was characterized as a merciless machoman who with square chin and a finger forcefully pointing toward the horizon would order his troops to march in the right direction. Even the metaphors of “captain of the ship” or the more genteel “director of an orchestra” nowadays sound too simplistic and rather outdated. At the start of the 21st century much more popular (again) is the primus inter paribus and “service leader” who is willing to put an organization and its staff and customers before their own interests. Even more powerful than the great leadership of yesterday is the concept of “new leadership”, with an emphasis on integrity, morality, and a commitment not just to profit but (also) to the planet and people. Leaders come in many shapes and sizes and one is not necessarily better than another. Natural as well as cultivated leadership styles need to be matched to specific organizations, to specific groups of people, to a specific time and place in development, and so on. This book offers an excellent starting point for those willing to engage with the challenges of the moment. One of the biggest challenges of all time, and a very acute challenge of the moment, is that of inducing and leading transition. So-called transition moments in an organization, or even in society at large, may happen seemingly spontaneously or by contrast as the result of carefully orchestrated change. The causes of gradual or radical transition are either what might be called the “invisible hand of transformation” or the result of skillful and powerful leadership. It does not need to be one or the other. It can be any form of transition on a spectrum ranging from those mysterious forces of change via leadership that seeks rapid evolution in an influencing and guiding style, through to focused and forced transitional leadership. This book effectively deals with the latter. I am very impressed with how it discusses in an accessible style and structure the point that contemporary leadership cannot be reduced to fit neatly into a single cultural category or multiple categories, and that good leaders are those who have knowledge of how to adapt their styles to the needs of the


Primus inter Paribus for Transition Moments

xiv

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xiv

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM

specific society they are committed to. The concept of trans-cultural leadership is, in fact, a challenging approach offering readers critical insights as well as practical perspectives in order to become flexible practitioners of leadership going beyond the nation-state and further beyond multicultural frames while at the same time shaping the societies of tomorrow. The focus of trans-cultural leadership is strongly on continual improvement and self-mastery to go along with transition but also to shape transitions. Within this context, I believe that leadership formation and education would be the right response to build up a generation of leaders at all levels. Prof. Dr Maurits van Rooijen Rector Magnificus and CEO of Nyenrode Business University, The Netherlands President, Compostela Group of Universities, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Chairman, Euro-Mediterranean University, Slovenia (Co-)Chairman, World Association for Co-operative Education, Boston MA


Foreword xv

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xv

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_01_prexvi.indd xvi

10/5/2010 10:14:29 AM


Prologue

Reasons to be more The caterpillar to the butterfly: We are from the same family. But you are beautiful and light. Why? The butterfly to the caterpillar: I am beautiful, because discovering the world with your wings makes you beautiful. I am light, because I fly with the wind. The caterpillar to the butterfly: Why tell me this? I have no wings. The butterfly to the caterpillar: Believe it or not, you will have wings, if you are willing to let die your old self for a new one.

1

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_02_pro.indd 1

10/5/2010 10:14:12 AM

1

1.1

Leaders and the challenges of the 21st century

Nowadays boundaries of time and space are crossed with great ease; the world has become a global village. Millions of people seek work, a new home or simply a safe place to live outside their places or countries of birth. They move to burgeoning and growing cities, which face rapid, multiple changes, in economic, political, and cultural terms. Globalization is a process of increasing interdependence between countries, which goes beyond global economic integration. Technology and communication let barriers and borders easily disappear. Apart from homogenizing processes, globalization at the same time brings about structural differentiation and socio-cultural diversification. This is due to greater flexibility but also to multi-dimensional fragmentations. Differences and diversity do not always mean enrichment; they often lead to disintegration (Sennett, 2000; Honneth, 1994, 1992). The current discourse on multicultural societies revolves around the acclamation of enriching diversity of values and lifestyles. On the one hand differentiation intensifies diversification; on the other hand there is the challenge of social and cultural polarization, growing dissent and the so-called intercultural conflict. Increasing mobility enforces social dissolution and displacement (Heitmeyer, 2004). Although migration and mobility are not new phenomena, the world has become more multi-dimensional and fragmented than in previous generations. Commitment and social cohesion, which assure the unity of communities and organizations, seem to have become more short-lived and rare.


Introduction

2

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_03_cha01.indd 2

10/5/2010 10:14:19 AM

Introduction 3

Global as well as local leaders of the 21st century will face rapidly occurring challenges on three main levels:

Leaders, no matter in which field – economic, social, or political – must respond to these challenges and be able to develop strategies to reach their followers. To merely inspire, involve and encourage their followers to adhere to a common vision are not enough. In an environment of increasingly complex and often competing incentives which tend to pull societies apart, leaders need to find a strategy of managing people and relationships in order to balance the tension of global effects on local environments, interest groups, and social divisions (McEwan, 2001; Thureau-Dangin, 1998; Schaeffer, 1997). When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America, the whole nation saw this as a defining moment in history and was fascinated by the new president’s charm and charisma. Senator Edward M. Kennedy referred to him as the “New Generation of Leadership” (Zeleny, 2008). Since then, Obama has become the target of many studies and articles for leadership and management theories (www.obama-leadership.com). Obama demonstrates visionary leadership. As a charismatic personality he is able to inspire and engage a whole nation for “change” – a key word in his passionate speeches. As a transformer he mobilizes and empowers talented followers by convincing them with words and deeds to adhere to a set standard of high values and achievements. As an integrative transactionalist he is able to create a powerful, effective, and balanced team as reliable supporters for his objectives. Above all he has a high cultural awareness and skillfully bridges differences by “healing” resentments and bruised relationships with other countries.

1.2

Goals and benefits for readership


1. Globalization of the economy 2. Human diversity and multi-optional disorientation 3. Cohesion fracture and the rise of multiple competitors.

In reference to organizations what kind of leadership do managers nowadays need? Does Barack Obama represent a new leadership style? What attributes and skills do managers and leaders need to lead their companies, organizations, or communities successfully through sensitive situations, such as the manifold challenges of globally increasing political, economic, and socio-cultural entanglement? As decision-makers and


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM


strategy navigators they carry on the one hand high responsibilities towards their companies, but at the same time they also need to be aware of the organizational reputation and performance of employees, investors, customers, partners, community, government, and, last but not least, their responsibility toward the environment. So, in order to face these challenges what kind of abilities and competencies do leaders have to develop to become sensitive toward the multi-dimensional complexity within and outside their organization? Within this context of queries the leading question of this book is: Could trans-cultural leadership be a new emerging approach to preparing and guiding people through organizational changes and developments at a time of global diversification and greater mobility? This is meant to be an open question. It is not my intention in this book to give a closed and finalized response. I consider trans-cultural leadership as a concept in progress not merely in a contemporary sense, but also in the sense of “innovation through continual progression”. Assuming that managers and leaders are subjected to economic neoliberalism and political power play, we would draw the conclusion they play more passive roles at the mercy of multiple external factors which are often taken as good excuses in order not to change the direction of development (Hoogvelt, 2001; McEwan, 2001; Schaeffer, 1997). In the light of this assumption many international companies develop their international strategies and provide programs and arrangements for international managers in order to teach them how to adapt to the cultural frameworks of the places they are sent to in order to ensure the economic survival on the countries in which they build their trade systems (Rugman and Collinson, 2006). For this book I would like to elaborate on the following hypotheses: 1. Managers and leaders are bearers of a cultural system affecting business ethics. 2. Culture is more than just nationally or locally defined characteristics. Culture is produced – and produces dynamic processes – in the search for meaning. 3. Leaders are not just a product of the culture they come from. Nor are they simply passive learners of how to adapt to global and local needs. Far more leaders are active producers of processes, which search for meaning inside and outside of their organization. As leaders of their organization they have a strong impact on the


4


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM

implementation of visions and strategies on their community and interpersonal relationships, on decision-making and communication processes. This goes far beyond governing organizational structures, natural and human resource practices, or cultural and ethical development. 4. As bearers of responsibilities towards their companies, organizations, and towards the environment they are interacting with, they strive for an active search to find meaning in a style of leadership that balances economics and ethics and that actively shapes sensitive processes and creates a sustainable, organizational culture. 5. By sustainable organizational culture I mean the development and the cultivation of learning to provide viable responses to challenges and changes, which finally make a meaningful contribution not just to the customers, but also to the environment as a whole. The main goals and benefits of the book therefore are: 1. To discuss the interrelationship between culture and leadership. They are both in the process of a search for meaning, which finally shapes the culture and development of the organizations we work for and the communities we live in. 2. To identify beneficial qualities and competencies of leadership which go beyond national borders and structural frames. These competencies are outlined as trans-cultural leadership, implying the concepts of trans-culture and transformation. 3. To outline the benefits of trans-cultural leadership for organizational change and development. 4. And finally to draft some practice-based proposals of leadership development for the above business survival in an international context. The book is written for those who want to focus on the benefits of cultural diversity in combination with the search of transformation and cultural paradigm shift. As there is a wide range of good literature on culture and leadership, it is not my intention to deliver more in-depth discussion on different theories and approaches within this scope. I prefer to focus on what trans-cultural leadership embraces, and to present some fundamental knowledge for the understanding of how the trans-cultural concept could contribute to trans-cultural transformation. For these reasons, I take care not to give a quick-fix recipe of what one should do, as situations vary according to context. But I


Introduction 5


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM


wish to emphasize that trans-cultural leadership lives on transformation, thus on lifelong learning process and progress. In this regard, the presented conceptualization would give more incentives of continuous development to a broad and open-minded readership from individuals to collectives, from practitioners to students, academics, and to researchers and leaders at different ranks and in different economic, cultural, social, and educational fields. In this respect, the theoretical part provides questions and topics for further reflection and discussion of possible areas for research and practice-oriented projects, whereas the section on practice-based proposals delivers some ideas for the creation of strategies, change management and formation programmes. Coming from quite a multicultural and critical education background, it is, however, not my purpose within the scope of this book to deconstruct the mainstream nor the global reference cultures and the related cultural leadership, nor the positive and negative consequences of the cultural hegemony of leadership. Therefore, some readers might miss gender issues or concrete proposals of emancipatory leadership of transformation for the achievement of a specific goal. These are challenging issues that require further research and practices. However, I would like to offer my appreciation to readers wishing to give me some feedback and suggestions. You can leave me a message at www.iderungs. com. Many thanks!

1.3

The structure of the book

Part I provides theories and definitions of culture and leadership. We need to define first what culture is, or how we want to understand culture. I will begin in Chapter 2 with the notion of culture by raising the question of the container paradigm in the comparison of the symbolic and process-oriented cultural concept. The interrelationship between culture and leadership for organizational and cultural change will be emphasized. They are both the products and processes constructed by an organization. In Chapter 3 a distinction between leadership and management is necessary to understand the broad application of leadership that goes beyond economic management and frames. In the context of challenges and change transformational leadership will be examined. Assuming that transformational leaders are striving for innovation, they are also open-minded learners. The ability to learn is considered as relevant for organizational change and development in Chapter 4. The “unlearning” process is experienced as the most difficult part, as the people involved have to overcome (internalized) behavioural patterns


6


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM

that have been taken for granted. In this situation they are exposed to uncertainties. Strong leadership is required to lead the organization through the phases of “unfreezing, change, and refreezing”. Cultural change is on the deepest level comparable to the cultural paradigm shift. Trans-cultural leadership is examined in Chapter 5 as the synthesis of the concepts of trans-culture and transformation. Trans-cultural leaders are constantly exposed to different cultural orientations, and thus to irritating situations of ambiguities and conflicts. They are expected to “unlearn” old patterns and “relearn” new patterns. While undergoing the transformation process, trans-cultural leaders can still maintain self-confidence, emotional resilience, and conscientiousness that provide them with safety, security, and stability (Higgs and McGuire, 2001). The managing of self or self-mastery is essential to transmit the comfort zone of trust to the environment. At the same time these leaders are flexible and sensitive to different perspectives, and accordingly they are predestined to lead the organization through cultural change. Part II introduces the results of a spontaneous online survey in Chapter 6 which was conducted with managers at different levels and in different fields of practice. The aim of the survey was simply to get a snapshot of different managers’ opinions about leadership, especially about relationship-oriented leadership style. It would be closer to reality to observe their leadership styles in relation to their organizations in action, but this is not the purpose of the book. Instead, with the online queries, the point was to find out what traits and qualities the surveyed managers consider as relevant to leadership in an international context. Furthermore, they were asked to sketch the outline of a would-be leader based on multiple-choice questions. Their responses to difficulties experienced, and to the necessity of coaching and training, give us some clues as to the needs of leadership development. Part III contains some arguments in Chapter 7 for trans-cultural leadership training as a “sustainable” investment for business strategy development. I suggest that organizations in a world of high mobility and diversity should develop trans-cultural competencies on all levels, and trans-cultural leaders are rather the mentors of trans-cultural competence. Creation of a cooperative learning environment, thus enhancing a learning organization and continuous improvement, is the main focus of the chapter. Mentoring as a part of leadership is emphasized. The development of safety and cultural awareness is perceived as relevant for the emergence of “out of awareness”, and as the first step to opening up the process of cultural, thus organizational, change. Trans-cultural leadership for transformation is not organizing others for change. It is


Introduction 7


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM

8



about collective transformation at large, manifesting in self-mastering, gaining the level of being worthy of the overall value embedded in the collective mastery of transformation. Finally, the Epilogue summarizes the preceding outlines and puts forward the hypothesis that trans-cultural leadership would prepare and guide people through organizational change and development by ensuring transformation for a cultural paradigm shift.


10/5/2010 10:14:20 AM

Part I


Theories and Definitions


10/5/2010 12:39:51 PM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_04_cha02.indd 10

10/5/2010 12:39:51 PM

2

2.1

Culture in times of pluralism of identities

Increasing migration, mobility and, globalization have made nations and international companies more interdependent globally. Workforces have become more international, local environments more multicultural. Media and technology have made a substantial contribution to the acceleration of exchange of different values and lifestyles. Culture is not a new notion. The term originates from the Latin colere, to denote the process of cultivation in a broad sense. However, since the middle of the 20th century culture has been a buzzword used in daily as well as in scientific, political, public, and business discourses. Very often culture is attributed to nation state. People are identified according to groups that are made up of homogeneous communities with their specific rules, needs, and moral conceptions. The concept of the culture as a homogeneous entity such as nation state results from the container paradigm or frame, which goes back to the German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) and the English anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) in the 19th century (Dornheim, 2001). Herder’s concept of culture as autonomous islands emphasizes the inner homogenization and the necessity of the outer separation. He recognizes the positive value of cultural pluralism, and his comparative studies of cultures makes him the father of cultural relativism. Franz Boas (1858–1942), who was Herder’s student and became the founder of modern anthropology in the United States, set forth the view of cultural relativism. Similarly to Herder and Boas, Tylor defines culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1924:1). However, in contrast to


Culture

11


10/5/2010 12:39:51 PM


Herder and Boas he introduces the cultural universalism: All societies follow the same line of development, from savagery, barbarism to civilization (Tylor, 1924). The combination of Herder’s homogenization and Tylor’s cultural evolutionism simplifies culture in its complexity and becomes instrumentalized as political legitimation of European hegemony in the diffusion of their standards of an “excellent way of life” (see further, exhibit 2.1). These two approaches have a strong impact on contemporary discourses and nourish many hot debates on incommensurate cultural clashes, related to differences and stages of civilization; for example, traditional versus modernized societies, or the Islamic world versus the Western world. The container paradigm concept determines ethnic groups or nation states as closed systems bound to territories, and is often used as the key argumentation for power politics of ideologies and exclusion. Many scientists criticize this concept of culture (Dornheim, 2001). It fades out the dynamic of interdependency and interactions of human beings through time and space. Said (1995) points out that an enclosed system such as a nation is an “imagined geography,” which reflects the legitimation and perception of certain politics, how the world should be understood according to the nation’s division of it and finally the definition of their territoriality. Culture, as a concept, is a whole lot more than a simple set of boundaries, defined along the lines of geographical or national divisions. In the process of meaning-making, the collective builds on the experiences and exchanges among themselves the structure of their society and the explanations of others. Cultural nation as well as any collective identity is a social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 2003). According to historian Federico Chabod (1967), the concept of “nation” in its modern sense traces back to the 18th century. Modern societies are seen as post-national, multicultural and transnational (Hettlage et al., 1997). Exhibit 2.1

Cultural Relativism and Cultural Universalism


12

The cultural relativistic theories suggest that all cultures are specific in their perception and development about how the world and life could be explained. Consequently, belief systems and rules have to be understood in the context of the society that produces them. There is no absolute truth. Thus there can be no objective standard to categorize all cultures to the same line of stages of development. Cultural relativism promoted by Boas was a reaction to cultural evolutionism emerging from social Darwinism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, during the time of enlarging colonial empires. Cultural


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

relativism was a plea for political correctness and required ethical, political, religious, and societal tolerance. It competed with ethnocentrism and eurocentrism, which advocate the imperialism and implicate the expansion of capitalism as “the right way of development and fulfillment” until now. The current and ongoing debate on cultural relativism and universalism is on the universalism of human rights. The concept of cultural relativism in its origin asserts the right to be different. The problem is increasing, when cultural relativism is polarized with the universalism of human rights, which is considered as a product of “Western” morality imposed on Non-Western societies. The concept of human rights has no meaning unless rights become collectively recognized as universal. If we look at the world map nowadays, we would acknowledge that we do not live in a world where everybody has the same starting position, hence we do not all have the same concepts of equality of economic, social, cultural, civil, and political accesses. Accordingly, rights cannot attain universality, and remain somehow a vision and a goal for many societies. Within this context cultural relativism could be easily instrumentalized in the political power fight as an argumentation to justify incommensurate differences, and would hold the risk to support inequality and discrimination, when it comes to a moral value system of exclusion and violation of human dignity. Reflection and discussion issue Cultural relativism is often discussed in relation to multiculturalism and diversity. Discover and discuss how tolerant your organization is toward multicultural ambiguities and how much adjustment the organization’s members are making consciously and unconsciously. Further readings and website ●

●

●

Carr-Ruffino, Norma (1999). Diversity Success Strategies. Woburn, Butterworth-Heinemann. Carroll, Stephen J. & Martin J. Gannon (1996). Ethical Dimensions of International Management. Thousand Oaks, Sage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be viewed at: www. un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Castles and Davidson talk about “the end of national belonging” (Castles and Davidson, 2000). The complexity of globalization and the resulting national identity crisis and fragmentation of power and influence on local, regional, national, and international levels have led to different dilemmas, such as those listed below: ●


Culture 13

Economic trans-regional/transnational movement versus sovereignty of the state’s regulation


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

14

●

●

Trans-nationalism and transnational community versus national identity Respect for cultural diversity versus local (national) policy of integration and assimilation Transnational social networks versus local bureaucratic procedures and support in economic and social difficulties.

Flexible international workforce, new permanent settlers, labor migrants, and refugees move under different conditions and legal regimes. The increasing interdependency of modernization and globalization makes a clear distinction between national, international, and transnational identities impossible (Hettlage et al., 1997; Castles and Miller, 2009). Moallem (2000) calls attention to the fact that globalization and high mobility bring out the contradiction of the container paradigm: “immigrant entrepreneurs are becoming new economic agents, facilitating the movement of capital, labor, and culture from one location to another, from the private to the public spheres and from the formal to the informal. Their existence challenges modern politicospatial divisions based on national territoriality and market-centered economism. The entrepreneurial presence of immigrants problematizes any narrow conception of participation in centralized, state-regulated politics, placing in crisis both the narrow confines of modern nationalism as well as the global city-state” (p. 214). Hence, is it not irritating or self-reasserting of “imagined” national differences that one can still find such container reference in the field of discourse of internationalization? If we agree with Sandkühler’s observation, “the staged uniformity of a national culture is today just as unbelievable as the imagined unity of a world culture” (2004:81). Yet the static notion of culture seems to disagree with the global processes, which transcend the state-society unit, especially if we take into account the ongoing processes of fragmentation and reconstruction of cultural entities and identities in the past and those evolving throughout the world (Sandkühler, 2004; Welsch, 1999). In the present day context the awareness of the concept of culture is increasingly important, not only because of the expansion of economic activities which produce emerging international enterprises and organizations, thus contributing to additional ways of perceiving and defining culture. A plurality of ethical, social, and political orientations is expressed in multiple layers of knowledge and various assumptions (Said, 2001; Kaschuba, 1995). Thus, it is easy to get lost in a labyrinth of concepts about culture when promoted as “the right way(s)” of doing,


●



10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

Culture 15

1. Rapid change and disorientation: We live in an age of rapid sociocultural changes, both locally and globally, which is drawing different nations and cultural systems into intensive interaction and communication. In spite of its global aspect, change does not appear in a uniform process. It affects people in different settings in different ways (Schaeffer, 1997). Divergent experiences of consequences lead to various viewpoints that intensify divergent perspectives and lead easily to disorientation in solving problems. Leaders have to know what to focus on, when it comes to providing common orientation. 2. Interdependence and various effects: The reality of globalization is the reality of interdependencies. The incidence of the one localized event has various consequences, thus it is perceived in various ways by people with various backgrounds in various settings. Thus the paradox is that the more social division we have, the more interdependent the effects we will become ... and so it goes on. The other paradox is that the global uniform economics competition draws societies and people apart. The processes of competition and individualization push social division and fragmentation, on not only behavioral but also cognitive and affective levels (Heitmeyer, 2004; Thureau-Dangin, 1998; Schaeffer, 1997). Only when an incidence of one place, such as the bankruptcy and fiscal collapse in the United States in recent years, causes financial crisis worldwide, do people become aware of how interdependent they are, and some of them might take pains to learn of the interrelationship between economic, political, and socio-cultural forces. Leaders have to consider the possible effects on the daily lives of their followers/subordinates by understanding the concepts of interdependency and the paradoxes of globalization to prevent social and cognitive fragmentation as a result of the promotion and celebration of successful lone fighters in the landscape of economic competition. In other words, leaders enhance the need for cohesion and the ability of cooperation to anticipate the consequences of interdependency.


being, and believing. So leaders have to find a way to comprehend what culture is, what it is made of, and how it could be instrumentalized for certain purposes, or in other words, how to apply culture in their mission as leaders for a meaningful and sustainable “excellent way of life.” As discussed in the Introduction, dealing with culture has thus become a significant consideration for leadership for the following four reasons:


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM


3. Different ways of life: We live in an increasingly multicultural society. People from different backgrounds have a growing choice of “life’s tastes and preferences” (Bourdieu, 1987). However, the world of abundance of lifestyles is restricted to a few people having the chance and the choice as well as open accesses to the pluralism of values without life-threatening consequences. By contrast, the majority live with the narrow conditions of choice of preferences due to economic, social, cultural, and political limits. Thus, there is a growing difference of access to multiple options; and the gap between the privileged and the less privileged is increasing. This fact makes living and working together more difficult in the paradoxes between abundance and restraint provided by the options of diversity of what “excellent ways of life” could be. Leaders are encouraged to use the paradoxes caused by the diversity of choices and accesses and to create beyond differences a sense of collective attachment and commitment to common life quality. They pave the way to diversity as resources for finding “innovative” solutions and still keep focus on the common direction. They set up relationship-based communication to support a collective responsibility and to create emotions about a “shared home base” the community and environment. Emotions about shared responsibility are important in order to sustain the organization and to ensure the environment’s viability and survival as common goal and vision. 4. Competition and power: Globalization is not just about the process of international economic pace and scale. It involves social and cultural dimensions which define the value system of ethics and efficiency in reference to international market forces. In a world of multifaceted paradoxes embedded in the rapid dynamics of the “global value chain” and of increasing diversity of value systems, questions turn up such as: “Should each country promote its own national value chain, and is there any limit of diversity?”; or “What varieties of capitalism are performing well in an open international economy where inequality and competitive behaviors represent the norm?” “Which nation achieves the most accomplishment in the realization of economies of scale and scope?,” “Which companies produce outside their own countries the right set of global solutions based on which value system?,” and so on (Mander and Cavanough, 2003; Hoogvelt, 2001; Thureau-Dangin, 1998). By being aware of the power issue and of the aspects of competition of cultural values, leaders develop a sensitivity which helps them to balance symmetric and asymmetric power relationships without losing sight of the double responsibilities between economics and ethics, between the value chain and value system.


16


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

In many essays on management, leaders in international fields are advised to adapt their leadership style to fit the local expectations of their interactive partners or to that of the country they are sent to, when dealing with conversations, meetings, interviews, and by making negotiations and decisions, as well as in developing strategies and in operating management (Bergemann and Bergemann, 2005; McFarlin and Sweeney, 2004). The suggestions seem to be comprehensible and promise managerial success. Global leaders have to acquire a cultural knowledge – often in short courses – of cross-cultural training, so that they are able to match the requirements of the target country. However, there are many cultures and subcultures, and thus numerous standards. And it is too simplified to believe in the particular Indian, Chinese, or Japanese culture. Courses and textbooks on practices of how to “bow and shake hands” seem to provide good guidance on how to make good business. Good relationships promise good trade (Devine and Braganti, 1998; Morrison et al. 1994; Series of Culture Shock – a guide to customs and etiquette all over the world). Hofstede‘s model of culture is often used in international training programs for expatriate managers. There they learn about culture in reference to each nation, which is distinctive and describable (www.geerthofstede.com). Hofstede’s model is criticized by some scientists, who say that it is too bound to nation state, which would support the container frame and contradicts global volatility and deterritorialization (McSweeney, 2002). So what is culture if not confined within nation state? What kind of grounding do leaders need so that they have an understanding of the impact of culture and the necessary skills to lead their followers to take on the challenges of continuous change affecting their companies and organizations in multicultural, or post-national or transnational communities and societies?

Summary questions ●

●

●

●

What concept of culture do we have nowadays in terms of pluralism of identities? Is nationality consistent with your feelings of belonging to a certain culture? What would the definition of culture be in this context? What does the container paradigm of culture mean? What discourses shape your actual understanding of culture? What are the differences between cultural relativism and universalism and the risks and chances of these two terms in a society of inequality or of asymmetric power relation? What are the challenges leaders nowadays are confronting and how should they balance these difficulties?


Culture 17


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

18


●

●

●

● ● ●

In what ways might the combination of Herder’s homogenization and Tylor’s cultural evolution promote racism and discrimination? Discuss Herder’s concept of culture as a homogeneous entity that you experience in daily life and discourses and how it influences your area of practice and of leadership. Discuss recent trends and key issues in the debate of differences of culture related to nation. Discuss how and which global processes transcend the state-society unit. Discuss the dilemmas and crises national identity are facing. Why do you think it is important that leaders have to focus on common direction along with respecting diversity?

Possible areas for projects of discovery and discussion ●

●

●

Find out how the notion “culture” has changed its web of meanings and focus from ancient times to now, and how the variety of definitions and perceptions affects the relationships of self and others in the definitions of nation and ethnicity, as well as of international and transnational communities. Examine the impact of human mobility and migration on national identities and on companies’ identities. Compare and contrast them. Find out how easy or difficult it is to define “culture” within this context. Study the processes of homogenization and of social construction to create and practice culture within a defined collective, such as group, community, or organization.

Further reading ●

●

●

●

2.2

Drucker, Peter (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York, Harper Collins. Hoogvelt, Ankie (2001). Globalization and the Postcolonial World. The New Political Economy of Development. New York, Palgrave MacMillan. Sandkühler, H. J. (2004) ‘Pluralism, Cultures of Knowledge, Transculturality, and Fundamental Rights’, in Sandkühler, H. J. & Lim, H.-B. (eds) Transculturality – Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics. Frankfurt/M, Peter Lang. Schaeffer, Robert K. (1997). Understanding Globalization. The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change. Oxford, Rowman & Littlefied.


Topics for reflection

Culture beyond the container paradigm

It can be challenging to get a clear definition of what culture is. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) listed 164 definitions of “culture.” The many


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

Culture 19

●

●

●

●

Different phenomena: such as culture as arts, ways of living, communication behaviors, education, knowledge, and sciences Differences in timeframe, history, and scale: such as culture as folklore, ethnicity, nation, or as a translocal entity Differences of perspectives and goals: such as the needs of groups, the development of organization, or the legitimization of a nation Different levels of analysis: such as functionalism, structuralism, symbolic interactionalism, systemic constructivist approach, and so on. (Lewis, 2002; Hansen, 2000; Gupta and Ferguson, 1992)

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) defined six key value orientations relevant to understanding culture. They concern questions on: 1. Human nature: Human beings are either trustworthy and responsible (good), or un-trustworthy and not controllable (evil), or they can be both (mixture). This dimension has, for example, an impact on the definition and emphasis of leadership style, of the relationship between leaders and their followers, and the attitudes and behaviors towards others. 2. The relationship between nature and human beings: People perceive themselves as part of nature; they either live in harmony with the environment (harmonious behavior), or they submit to the force of nature (submissive behavior). The third possibility is that they believe in their ability to control and influence the environment (mastery). According to this understanding, the quality of the relationship defines how much and in what way environment is considered and involved in the conceptualization of improvement, change, and transformation of an organization, or of a system, either as negligible factor, as a burden, or as an indispensible partner.


attempts to define culture arise from the different fields of sciences focusing on:

3. The nature of relationships among humans: People take responsibility for well-being based either on collaterality, which means decisions are made laterally on a collective consensus where everybody contributes to the well-being of everybody else, or otherwise responsibility and thus decisions run top-down linearly. Lastly, responsibility of well-being is an individual matter; decisions are made independently.


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

20


4. The concept of human activity: The activity of some cultures is based on internal motivation, with the focus on “being.” In some other cultures the motivation is external, with the activities approved by others in a group. The focus is on “doing.” The meaning of activity gives value to work and goals’ fulfillment in an organizational culture. 5. The temporal forms of human activity: The focus is on either past, or present, or future implications. This dimension has an impact not merely on how people manage time, but also on how they take time such as past, present, and future into consideration in the process of defining change and transformation. 6. The concept of space: Some societies prefer to conduct activities in private and others more in public spaces. Knowing the preference of a culture helps leaders understand how to behave; for example, which activities can be celebrated in public or in private spaces. Although Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck affirmed their theories as incomplete and have not tested them in practical study, their orientations have inspired many researchers in culture and management, such as Hofstede (1991), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), Hall (1989), and Schein (2004). Geert Hofstede‘s national culture has influenced many management disciplines and is well accepted by many scholarly followers. For his theory, he undertook in the late 1970s and early 1980s a large research project analyzing the workforce of the subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 66 countries (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 1990). In his editions of 2000 the analysis of scores is extended to 74 countries and regions (see table 2.1). Many subsequent studies were started, based on four dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later (Hofstede et al., 1990; Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede et al., 1998). The five dimensions are:


These questions are important for the development of cooperation, sharing responsibility, participation, and decision-making processes.

1. Power distance index (PDI): “that is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

Culture 21

2. Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI): “deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. People in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions” (www. geert-hofstede.com). 3. Individualism (IDV): “on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts, and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word ‘collectivism’ in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world” (www.geert-hofstede.com).


as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that ‘all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others’ ” (www.geert-hofstede.com).

4. Masculinity (MAS): “versus its opposite, femininity, refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

22


5. Long-term orientation (LTO): “versus short-term orientation: this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. It can be said to deal with Virtue regardless of Truth. Values associated with Long-Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with Short-Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s ‘face’. Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage” (www.geert-hofstede.com). Table 2.1 Geert Hofstede’s Values Scores Country Arab world **

PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

80

38

52

68

Argentina

49

46

56

86

Australia

36

90

61

51

Austria

11

55

79

70

Bangladesh *

80

20

55

60

Belgium

65

75

54

94

Brazil

69

38

49

76

Bulgaria *

70

30

40

85

Canada

39

80

52

48

Chile

63

23

28

86

China *

80

20

66

30

Colombia

67

13

64

80

Costa Rica

35

15

21

86

Czech Republic *

57

58

57

74

Denmark

18

74

16

23

East Africa **

64

27

41

52

LTO

31

40

65

23

118


and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men’s values and women’s values” (www.geert-hofstede.com).

13

25 Continued


10/5/2010 12:39:52 PM

Culture 23 Table 2.1 Continued PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

LTO

Ecuador

78

8

63

67

El Salvador

66

19

40

94

Estonia *

40

60

30

60

Finland

33

63

26

59

France

68

71

43

86

Germany

35

67

66

65

Greece

60

35

57

112

Guatemala

95

6

37

101

Hong Kong

68

25

57

29

96

Hungary *

46

80

88

82

50

India

77

48

56

40

61

Indonesia

78

14

46

48

Iran

58

41

43

59

Ireland

28

70

68

35

Israel

13

54

47

81

Italy

50

76

70

75

Jamaica

45

39

68

13

Japan

54

46

95

92

40

60

50

70

104

26

50

36

Luxembourg * Malaysia Malta *

56

59

47

96

Mexico

81

30

69

82

31

80

Morocco *

70

46

53

68

Netherlands

38

80

14

53

44

New Zealand

22

79

58

49

30

Norway

31

69

8

50

20

Pakistan

55

14

50

70

0

Panama

95

11

44

86

Peru

64

16

42

87

Philippines

94

32

64

44

19

Poland *

68

60

64

93

32

Portugal

63

27

31

104


Country

Continued


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

24


Table 2.1 Continued PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

LTO

Romania *

90

30

42

90

Russia *

93

39

36

95

Singapore

74

20

48

8

48

Slovakia *

104

52

110

51

38

South Africa

49

65

63

49

South Korea

60

18

39

85

Spain

57

51

42

86

Surinam *

85

47

37

92

Sweden

31

71

5

29

Switzerland

34

68

70

58

75

33

Taiwan

58

17

45

69

87

Thailand

64

20

34

64

56

Trinidad *

47

16

58

55

Turkey

66

37

45

85

United Kingdom

35

89

66

35

25

United States

40

91

62

46

29

Uruguay

61

36

38

100

Venezuela

81

12

73

76

Vietnam *

70

20

40

30

80

West Africa

77

20

46

54

16

* estimated value ** regional estimated value Arab world: Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia West Africa: Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone Source: Data from www.geert-hofstede.com (date accessed 9 April 2010).


Country

Hofstede‘s analysis of dimensions and scores are popular in management and communication training programs. Many subsequent research and application suggestions refer to his dimensions. For example, one can find advice on how to behave in a country of high PDI like Malaysia (PDI 104), such as “acknowledge a leader’s power and be aware that you may need to go to the top for answers” (www.mindtools.com/ pages/article/newLDR_66.htm, date accessed 14 April 2010), whereas in a country of low PDI like Austria (PDI 11) one should better “use


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

teamwork and involve as many people as possible in decision making” (www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_66.htm, dated accessed 14 April 2010). In practice we should ask how appropriate it is to say that Austrian people acknowledge a leader’s power less and use more teamwork than Malaysian people. The response, how applicable and not self-fulfilling Hofstede’s model is to affirm national stereotypes, is left to the experiences of those who have to feel the consequences of their interpretations. Similarly to Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) tried to identify cultural differences, and they added to the five two more dimensions of the ways in which people interact with each other. These are: 1. Universalism versus particularism: People of universalistic cultures believe that rules and standards should be followed, as they apply equally to everybody, whereas people of particularistic cultures consider, for example, contracts as a kind of guideline and are therefore situative and changeable according to the particular circumstances. 2. Individualism versus communitarism/collectivism: In an individualistic society people are predominantly educated to refer to themselves as individuals and to take personal responsibility. Individuals seek to be distinguished within the group. In a collectivistic society people understand themselves as part of the society. Decisions and negotiations are made in agreement with the group. Responsibility is shared. 3. Neutral versus emotional: In emotionally neutral cultures people have their emotions under control, whereas in cultures with stress on emotions affections are openly expressed. 4. Specific versus diffuse: Specific cultures make a division between working life and personal life, between business and friendship. In diffuse cultures one’s business partner is part of one’s private life and will be invited to family festivities. 5. Achievement versus ascription: Societies with focus on achievement accord status to people on the basis of their performance. Societies with focus on ascription attribute status based on who and what the person is (birth, age, gender, wealth).


Culture 25

6. Sequential versus synchronic: When time is structured sequentially, people prefer to do one activity at a time. They like to keep appointments and to follow a plan according to their organized schedule. When time is perceived as synchronic, people consider appointments and schedules as guidelines and not as strict order. They can do several things at a time.


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

26


Hofstede’s and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s dimensions give some behavioral orientations, which are useful in managing diversity. In whatever way the dimensions are linked with national differentiation, one might ask to what extent the national references contribute to distortion of cultural pluralism within a nation. Stereotypes and generalization narrow down a wide field of possible interpretative approaches and reproduce stereotyping behaviors, which would impede a deeper understanding going beyond national labelling. Still, following Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ data-collecting example the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness project (GLOBE) of 1992 involved 150 researchers and 18,000 managers across 62 countries and extended the dimensions to nine key orientations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

assertiveness future orientation gender differentiation uncertainty avoidance power distance institutional collectivism (individualism vs collectivism) in-group/family collectivism performance orientation humane orientation. (cited in Rugman and Collinson, 2006)

The findings add basically no more knowledge, as here again the dimensions are linked with national differentiation. Once again, GLOBE’s, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s, and Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions can help to measure the impact of national culture on management, and are therefore of great use for giving a general orientation of behavior, when managers work in a foreign country or with the specific country’s members at home (Dickson et al., 1999). Nevertheless, we are well advised to question how accurate, for instance, Hofstede’s data is. Applying Hofstede’s dimensions to the survey itself, individuals in collectivism-oriented cultures might tend to answer questions as if they were addressed to the group they belong to,


7. Internal versus external control: In cultures with belief in internal control people perceive outcomes as their personal results and have control over their lives. In cultures with belief in external control people tend to accept their life’s situations as they consider them as their destiny.


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

while in individualism-oriented cultures the answers will most likely be answered and perceived through the eyes of the individual. Thus, how accurate are Hofstede’s survey’s conclusions regarding the knowledge of cultural diversity? Besides that, how can we do justice to the richness of national practices and institutions such as subcultures and regional and local diversity when assuming their national uniformity? Furthermore, how reliable is the data in a world of mobility and volatility? How much does the culture of a country change over time, either by internal or external influences? Accordingly, how much is the dominant culture factoring out other cultural paradigms taken for granted? Last but not least, can different behaviors depending on the varieties of situations’ outcomes be reduced to the variable interpretations of those terms, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, and so on? Exhibit 2.2a Hall’s Concept of Time Monochronic time M-Time, as Hall (1990) called it, means doing one thing at a time. It assumes careful planning and scheduling and is a familiar Western approach that appears in disciplines such as “time management.” Monochronic people tend also to be low context. Polychronic time In polychronic cultures, human interaction is valued over time and material things, leading to a lesser concern for “getting things done” – they do get done, but in their own time. Factor

Monochronic action

Polychronic action

Actions

Do one thing at a time

Do many things at once

Focus

Concentrate on the job at hand

Are easily distracted

Attention to time

Think about when things must be achieved

Think about what will be achieved

Priority

Put the job first

Put relationships first

Respect for property

Seldom borrow or lend things

Borrow and lend things often and easily

Timeliness

Emphasize promptness

Base promptness relationship factors


Culture 27

Source: http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm (date accessed 9 April 2010).


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

28


Exhibit 2.2b Hall’s Concept of the Relevance of Context High context

Low context In a low-context culture, very little is taken for granted. While this means that more explanation is needed, it also means there is less chance of misunderstanding, particularly when visitors are present Factor

High-context culture

Low-context culture

Overtness of messages

Many covert and implicit messages, with use of metaphor and reading between the lines

Many overt and explicit messages that are simple and clear

Locus of control and attribution for failure

Inner locus of control and personal acceptance for failure

Outer locus of control and blame of others for failure

Use of non-verbal communication

Much non-verbal communication

More focus on verbal communication than body language

Expression of reaction

Reserved, inward reaction

Visible, external, outward reaction

Cohesion and separation of groups

Strong distinction between in-group and out-group Strong sense of family

Flexible and open grouping patterns, changing as needed

People bonds

Strong people bonds with affiliation to family and community

Fragile bonds between people with little sense of loyalty

Level of commitment to relationships

High commitment to long-term relationships Relationships more important than task

Low commitment to relationship Task more important than relationships

Flexibility of time

Time is open and flexible Process is more important than product

Time is highly organized Product is more important than process


In a high-context culture, there are many contextual elements that help people to understand the rules. As a result, much is taken for granted. This can be very confusing for a person who does not understand the “unwritten rules” of the culture.

Source: http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm (date accessed 9 April 2010).


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

The goal of the large-scale research was to find out the different styles of communication and interaction resulting from national or cultural preferences. In comparison to Hofstede, Hall (1989, 1990) did not conduct large-scale research to define the national profile on dimensions. He was interested in comparing culture with communication processes operating on formal, informal, and technical levels (Lewis, 2002). His theory was based on direct observation of behavior in a society, and described how people of certain cultures structure their time according to the concept of monochronic or polychronic time orientation (Hall, 1966; see exhibit 2.2a). His definition is similar to Trompenaar and Hampden-Turner’s dimensions of sequential and synchronic time orientations. Additionally, Hall introduced the dimensions of high context and low context. The high- and low-context concept refers to the way information is transmitted, and concerns the subject matter and how much the interactors need to know before they can communicate effectively (Hall, 1989; and see exhibit 2.2b). Hall’s contribution was important to the role of communication in management and useful for helping to make sense of the variations of interactive relationships in faceto-face situations, company to company, organizations to customers, stakeholders and environment. Like many scientists of cultural theories, Hall believed that culture is the sum of learned behavior patterns passed from one generation to the next. The container paradigm of culture, which is reflected especially in GLOBE’s, Hofstede’s, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s models and is used as the framework of normative reference for national groups, irritates many scholars (McSweeney, 2002). In recent times Hofstede emphasizes less national differentiation and refers his dimensions more to groups’ behaviors. Behind the thought that individuals in a particular society share culture is the implication that the group’s culture is somehow learned and transmitted rather than innate, which does not differ much from Hall’s concept. This idea is significant for organizational development and change, as culture is dynamic, based on interactive processes and can therefore be created and modified through sharing and learning in group exchange. Culture is a collective construction of meaning and reality through ongoing discourse (Geertz, 1973; Foucault, 1980; Lewis, 2002). Hofstede (1980) suggests that at the core of culture, which is comparable to an onion being peeled layer by layer, there are values or belief systems. Values are invisible, but manifested through the three other layers: rituals, heroes, and symbols. Rituals stand for collective activities


Culture 29


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM


such as greeting, paying respect, courtesy, etc. Heroes refer to persons alive or dead, real or imaginary who are role models or have a significant impact on behavior. Symbols mean language, gestures, pictures, objects, clothing, hairstyles or visible expressions of culture. Joining all of these layers, Hofstede introduced the notion of practice (see figure 2.1). Practice is the means by which a culture coherently and cohesively inculcates its values at each level of expression. Through socialization and integration people learn how to practice culture acceptable to various levels: national, regional, familial, gender, social class, and corporate. We can say that culture becomes “the second nature of human beings” through practices (Hansen, 2000). As culture is passed on from generation to generation through various shared and expressed practices, Hofstede described it as “software of the mind“ or “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (1980:25). Saying that a group’s members share culture does not deny the information processing (practices) and the possible resulting transformation of patterns due to exchange among them. So we can conclude that culture becomes standardized orientations by the dynamic processes of construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of meanings.

Symbols

society

Heroes Rituals

Core Values

organization Practices

belief system

concept of honoring

family


30

role models

stories and parables

individual

Figure 2.1 Hofstede‘s Onion


10/5/2010 12:39:53 PM

Culture 31


●

●

●

What are the cultural dimensions for? If you compare the dimensions provided by GLOBE, Hofstede, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, in what ways are they similar, and how interpretative are they? What are the benefits and the limits of the cultural dimensions introduced by Hofstede and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner? What are the core assumptions of Hall’s theories, and to what extent are they different from other theories? Explain Hofstede‘s onion’s metaphor for culture, and what practice implies in daily life. Give examples for the representatives of the different layers.

Topics for reflection ●

●

●

●

Search the site www.geert-hofstede.com, and discuss with your colleagues, partners, or supervisors why Hofstede‘s dimensions are popular in crosscultural management training programs, and when you would apply them. Thinking of your professional experiences in different cross-cultural settings discuss Hofstede‘s cultural values scores (table 2.1) related to national orientations: a) To what extend do you agree with them, based on what criteria of observations? b) In what ways might these values scores promote stereotypes and cultural prejudices? Imagine you were appointed to lead a team of different nationalities (USA, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Brazil) in Berlin for a marketing project of a product designed for a global solvent social class. What are the uses and values of cultural dimensions? When and how would you implement them? Develop points and counterpoints of the use of cultural dimensions.


Hofstede‘s large-scale research might support the container paradigm, but his definition of culture does not refer to a complete closed system without any possible internal and external exchange. The different dimensions give some orientation; without them a definition would be impossible and communication unmanageable. They are broad enough to be used for categorizing but not as fixed categories.


Familiarize yourself with Hall’s theories and find out the relevance and use of the cultural factors for organizational change in an international setting, for example, in your field.


10/5/2010 12:39:54 PM

●

●

●


Discover, develop and discuss factors and dynamics of internal exchange (within the organization) and of external exchange (between the organization and the environment) of the international organization that you work for. Discover and develop a hypothesis for how the meanings of “culture” is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed based on theories of constructivism and deconstructivism provided by, for example, Lev Vygotsky, Berger and Luckmann, Jacques Derrida, and Edward Said. Recall your experiences in your daily life, for example, in your family, that you relate with expressed practices of values and try to trace back how these values are passed on from generation to generation by means of practices. Develop a hypothesis of processes, which are implicitly and explicitly expressed through practices, which messages are transported through rituals, heroes, and symbols, and what rules and taboos are for.

Further reading and websites ● ●

●

● ●

● ● ●

2.3

Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York, Anchor Books. Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, Sage. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidian, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Lewis, Jeff (2002). Cultural Studies. The Basics. London, Sage. Fiske, Alan P. (2002). ‘Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – a critique of the validity of measurement of the constructs: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)’, in Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78 –88, American Psychological Association, Inc. Hofstede: www.geert-hofstede.com Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner: www.7d-culture.nl GLOBE: www.thunderbird.edu

Behavior that is taken for granted

Edgar Schein examines the effect of the organization on culture without an intensive investigation of large-scale research. Short- and long-term observations of various companies and organizations are his means. His interest focuses less on symbolic concepts like Hall’s, Hofstede‘s, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (such as why members behave the way they do), and more on how culture evolves and changes (Schein, 2004). His foci are on learning, leading, and problem-solving processes, which are relevant for organizational culture, for development and change. Similarly to Hofstede, Schein (2004) describes culture with three layers (see figure 2.2): The outer layer, which is visible but not


32


10/5/2010 12:39:54 PM

Culture 33

artifacts

espoused values

basic assumptions

strategies, goals, philosophies (espoused justification)

unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perception, thoughts, and feelings (ultimate source of values and action)

Figure 2.2 Schein’s Model

decipherable, is called artifacts and creations. It contains visible and audible behavior patterns. This layer manifests in structures and processes, and in phenomena such as organizations, groups, communities, and nations, but also in languages, symbols, interaction behaviors, and so on. However, to understand why members behave the way they do, why they choose a certain communication style, Schein introduces the next layer: values. Values are hard to observe directly. What we can perceive often are the rationalizations for behavior. This layer refers to espoused values expressed in strategies, goals, philosophies, norms, and aesthetical and ethical orientations. The reasons for behavior remain concealed or “unconscious,” and represent the next layer of basic assumptions, namely: “a set of basic assumptions defines for us what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions to take in various kinds of situations” (Schein, 2004:32). Schein relates the hidden and invisible aspects of the layer of basic assumptions to cultural dimensions that we know from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and others (see Section 2.2) and explains that basic assumptions have “unconscious” or “tacit” impacts on the nature of reality and truth, the nature of time, the nature of space, human nature, on the nature of human activity, and the nature of human relationships.


visible organizational structures and processes (difficult and hard to decipher)


10/5/2010 12:39:54 PM


“The Nature of Reality and Truth. The shared assumptions that define what is real and what is not, what is a fact in the physical realm and the social realm, how truth is ultimately to be determined, and whether truth is revealed or discovered. The Nature of Time. The shared assumptions that define the basic concept of time in the group, how time is defined and measured, how many kinds of time there are, and the importance of time in the culture. The Nature of Space. The shared assumptions about space and its distribution, how space is allocated, the symbolic meaning of space around the person, and the role of space in defining aspects of relationships such as degree of intimacy or definitions of privacy. The Nature of Human Nature. The shared assumptions that define what it means to be human and what human attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate. Is human nature good, evil, or neutral? Are human beings perfectible or not? The Nature of Human Activity. The shared assumptions that define what is the right thing for human beings to do in relating to their environment on the basis of the above assumptions about reality and the nature of human nature. In one’s basic orientation to life, what is the appropriate level of activity or passivity? At the organizational level, what is the relationship of the organization to its environment? The Nature of Human Relationships. The shared assumptions that define what is ultimately the right way for people to relate to each other, to distribute power and love. Is life cooperative or competitive; individualistic, group-collaborative, or communal? What is the appropriate psychological contract between employers and employees? Is authority ultimately based on traditional lineal authority, moral consensus, law, or charisma? What are the basic assumptions about how conflict should be resolved and how decisions should be made?” (Schein, 2004:138) In regard to the core of culture and in comparison to Hofstede, Schein goes further with his clear distinction of values: 1) the debatable, overt, espoused values, which are not always visible, but applicable; and 2) the less debatable and confrontable, taken-for-granted assumptions (or basic assumptions), which are powerful and hard to be changed, as they are unconscious and hidden. We can consider this layer the areas of taboos, of sacrosanct belief systems of truth of how the world should be organized, developed and built up in reference to nature, time, space, human beings, relationships, and activities. But this truth is not something given nor inspired from somewhere.


34


10/5/2010 12:39:54 PM

Although Schein refuses to refer his model explicitly to any constructivism and interactionalism theories, his concern is strongly on behaviorism theories of a collective. In this sense, similarly to Hall (1989, 1990), he considers culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions developed through learning processes in a group or in a collective. The group’s members make shared valid experiences of solving problems of external adaptation and internal integration. There is clear consensus on the ways by which goals will be met. Schein, agreeing with Hofstede and Hall, believes that behavior is determined by cultural dispositions and environmental factors. It results from values that are acquired by socialization through generations, and reflects how problems are perceived and solved. In other words, although we believe the way we have solved a problem is new and innovative, it is in fact not. Instead it is the result of a habit of problem-solving, based on the internalized perception of problem definitions. The way problems should be solved is taken for granted. Thus, the underlying assumptions giving the response of understanding and solving the problem remains invisible so that the conscious awareness of it is dropped. I explain this phenomenon as the lack of active reflection and the resulting lack of reflective action (DerungsRuhier, 2009; for an explanation to active reflection and reflective action, see Section 5.4). Culture is the collective way of internalized behavior of organizing life. External adaptation implies that the group organizes its strategy of survival to adapt to and to cope with its changing environment. While doing so, it develops internal integration by following the core mission of survival through the achievement of goals and accomplishment of tasks. Internal integration and external adaptation are inextricably intertwined processes (Schein, 2004). In other words, group members are formed by the way the group or the organization has successfully solved internal and external problems passing from generation to generation. These processes produce a pattern of shared perceptions, cognitions, and emotions, and finally hold the group together by giving them a common orientation, a meaningful mission and a collective identity. In that sense, culture is the process of finding meaning or sense. Schein (2004) called this process “the reason to be” within a group or a given collective. When the organizational culture is established, and it has learnt how to handle problems successfully, it weaves a pattern of values having undergone the process of collective validation. These values shape basic assumptions and are taken for granted. The ways of doing, being, and believing are reality and truth.


Culture 35


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM


Therefore cultural or organizational changes referring to this layer are always felt as a “danger” and create uncertainty, denial, anxiety, anger, guilt, and threat among group members. The hitherto validated reality and truth are felt undermined. Consequently, uncertain group members tend to cling to old assumptions and defend old patterns to keep their shaken balance. It is a hard lesson for the group’s members to “unlearn,” or in Lewin’s term to “unfreeze” (see exhibit 2.3), their schemata of interpretation of perceiving and solving problems that have been validated up to then. There must be a strong urgency that their unconscious behavior has to be critically questioned and change. Their belief system, hence their self, has to be redefined by conscious necessity. For understandable reasons, the “unlearning” or “unfreezing” of old patterns cause resistance within the group process. The fragmentation caused by anxiety and resistance takes place not only on the social but also on the mental and cognitive levels. The “unfreezing” process is experienced as difficult and disabling (Schein, 2004; Robbins, 2003; Fisher, 1999). However, when it is mastered, change is on the way. A new pattern can be woven. A paradigm shift can be set into process. The revolution in the mind clears the way for new direction of innovative solutions (Kuhn, 1996). According to Schein, culture comes into existence when a group develops a certain sense of togetherness through experiencing and sharing a life of learning and solving problems intrapersonally and interpersonally inside and outside the home. An organizational culture is produced when there is “sufficient shared history,” respectively when there is a “common destiny.” Within this context Schein (2004) emphasized the importance of leaders in developing a corporate culture everyone can identify with. In reference to change, the basic assumptions have to be “revealed” and “unlearnt.” This process of unlearning is an indispensable requirement for the transformation of organizational culture. Or in Kuhn’s terms, when assumptions and patterns people can identify with are newly created, “the paradigm shift” will evolve (Kuhn, 1996). In a rapidly changing environment leadership is to raise awareness of the urgency to change or the necessity to unlearn dysfunctional patterns in order to clear the way for acquiring a new and sustainable “reason to be” (Schein, 2004). In reference to Schein (2004) I would say that the current belief system of “the reason to be” would be referred to more precisely as the “reason to be more.” The shared assumptions of survival mission and strategy must become aware and revalidated for a new direction, because there is a painful hunger to survive. Accordingly, if


36


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

Culture 37

there are reasons to be more, challenges are not perceived as threats, but they offer best opportunities to move on for perpetual improvement and growth. Dysfunctional patterns are left behind with relief and not with resistance.

Lewin’s Three Stages of Change

In the early 20th century, psychologist Kurt Lewin identified three stages of change that are still the basis of many approaches today. Unfreeze A basic tendency of people is to seek a context in which they have relative safety and feel a sense of control. In establishing themselves, they attach their sense of identity to their environment. This creates a comfortable stasis from which any alternatives, even those which may offer significant benefit, will cause discomfort. Talking about the future thus is seldom enough to move them from this “frozen” state and significant effort may be required to “unfreeze” them and get them moving. This usually requires “push” methods to get them moving, after which “pull” methods can be used to keep them going. The term “change ready” is often used to describe people who are unfrozen and ready to take the next step. Some people come ready for change while others take a long time to let go of their comfortable current realities. Transition A key part of Lewin’s model is the notion that change, even at the psychological level, is a journey rather than a simple step. This journey may not be that simple and the person may need to go through several stages of misunderstanding before they get to the other side. A classic trap in change is for the leaders to spend months on their own personal journeys and then expect everyone else to cross the chasm in a single bound. Transitioning thus requires time. Leadership is often important and when whole organizations change, the one-eyed person may be king. Some form of coaching, counselling, or other psychological support will often be very helpful also. Although transition may be hard for the individual, often the hardest part is to start. Even when a person is unfrozen and ready for change, that first step can be very scary. Transition can also be a pleasant trap and, as Robert Louis Stephenson said, “It is better to travel hopefully than arrive.” People become comfortable in temporary situations where they are not accountable for the hazards of normal work and where talking about change may be substituted for real action.


Exhibit 2.3


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

38


At the other end of the journey, the final goal is to “refreeze,” putting down roots again and establishing the new place of stability. In practice, refreezing may be a slow process as transitions seldom stop cleanly, but go more in fits and starts with a long tail of bits and pieces. There are good and bad aspects to this. In modern organizations, this stage is often rather tentative as the next change may well be around the next corner. What is often encouraged, then, is more of a state of “slushiness,” where freezing is never really achieved (theoretically making the next unfreezing easier). The danger that many organizations have found with this is that people fall into a state of change shock, where they work at a low level of efficiency and effectiveness as they await the next change. “It’s not worth it” is a common phrase when asked to improve what they do. Source: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/lewin_ change/lewin_change.htm (date accessed 14 November 2009).

2.4

Cultural change through leadership

According to Schein, the leader plays a significant role in the creation of culture: “Culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin, in that leaders first create cultures when they create groups and organizations. Once cultures exist they determine the criteria for leadership and thus determine who will or will not be a leader. But if elements of a culture become dysfunctional, it is the unique function of leadership to be able to perceive the functional and dysfunctional elements of the existing culture and to manage cultural evolution and change in such a way that the group can survive in a changing environment” (2004:23). Effective leadership is a close connection between the leader and the followers, which determines the success of the leader’s mission and strategy (see Chapter 3). Ethical issues can cause differences and conflicts that can split a group apart (Connerley and Pedersen, 2005). Therefore, leaders need to examine their own judgments and be aware of cultural backgrounds and the resulting ethical dilemmas before they apply their negotiation skills with company or community members. Acknowledging diversity does not implicate a laissez-faire leadership, as “the subcultures must be connected and must learn to value each other enough in order to want to learn something of each other’s culture and language” (Schein, 2004:401). Leaders are advised not to manage diversity as the first strategy, but to set up a common mutual understanding first – or share basic assumptions. So, in an environment of increasing


Refreeze


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

diversity leaders have to reach out to followers by involving, inspiring and encouraging them for a common vision, which is shared in meaningful events. These shared events become “shared destiny and history,” as described in the previous section, or “collective memory” (Assmann, 1997). In the process of creating shared history leaders have to know how to initiate, establish, nurture and maintain relationships by providing a cognitive, emotional and perceptual program, by attempting to find common vision. This, for instance, can be done through solving tasks and problems together in order to enhance internal integration and external adaptation. By sharing experiences uncertainty and anxiety are reduced, which is often the case when group members feel insecure with other members. When the group shares success of overcoming difficulties, the experienced collective behavior becomes justified. A collective reflection can be established for taking collective action. The new emerging organizational culture provides meaning for its members. Meaningful achievement fosters a process of stability and the feelings of security that the group and the organization are on the “right way to their mission” (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Schein, 2004). Within the existing organization leaders face the same limitations and difficulties when they start evolutionary change processes. Once stability is achieved, it is easier for the organizational members “to distort new data by denial, projection, rationalization, or various other defense mechanisms than to change the basic assumption ... Culture change, in the sense of changing basic assumptions is, therefore, difficult, time-consuming, and highly anxiety-provoking – a point that is especially relevant for the leader who sets out to change the culture of the organization. The most central issue for leaders, therefore, is how to get at the deeper levels of a culture, how to assess the functionality of the assumptions made at that level, and how to deal with the anxiety that is unleashed when those levels are challenged” (Schein, 2004:37). Processes, the formation and the change of culture are the outcome of leadership activities involving the creation and shaping of culture. Once a culture exists, it is the guiding and “sense-making“ factor in a group or organization. Consequently, when top management find excuses that it is not their fault that the organization does not function as it should, but that the culture has caused the intolerable situation, the managers are trying to conceal their own failure and have not assumed the responsibility of leadership, which is to go through these anxieties and to manage change. For Schein, leadership is the key driver for the creation and development of change: “But as the group runs into adaptive difficulties, as its environment changes to the point where some of its


Culture 39


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

40 Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation


●

●

●

To what extent does Schein’s theory differ from others, such as Hofstede and Hall? What does “unlearning” or “unfreezing” mean based on your personal observation in organizational change? Why does “unlearning” cause anxiety and insecurity? What effect does it have on the attitudes towards change? What are Schein’s hypotheses when he claims that culture and leadership are of the same coin?

Topics for reflection ● ●

●

●

Give examples of how values become the rationalization of behaviors. Discuss how artifacts have an impact on espoused values and how values have an effect on artifacts. Give examples of your own observation in your company or community. Develop arguments why leadership is important for cultural and organizational change. Imagine what you would do to give your team or group feelings of security in uncertain situations.


●

●

Analyze your organization’s methods for dealing with internal and external problems, and try to find out the basic assumptions the solutions are based on. Explore Lewin’s and Kuhn’s theories and the three stages of change and the revolution of mind or the paradigm shift, and to what extent and on what levels these theories complement one another. Try to apply them in your own practice field. Find out reasons why leaders are advised not to release diversity for open discussion and to start with managing diversity in the beginning of organizational change.


assumptions are no longer valid, leadership comes into play once more. Leadership is now the ability to step outside the culture that created the leader and to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. This ability to perceive the limitations of one’s own culture and to evolve the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership” (2004:2).


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

Culture 41

●

●

●

●

●

●

2.5

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Chicago. Laszlo, Erwin E, Grof, S. and Russell, P. (1999). The Consciousness Revolution. Boston, Element Books. Russell, Peter (1995). The Global Brain Awakens. Our Next Evolutionary Leap. Palo Alto, Global Brain Inc. Schein, E. H. (unknown). ‘Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning’, online: www. solonline.org/res/wp/10006.html. Smith, M. K. (2001). ‘Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research’, in The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, online: www.infed.org/ thinkers/et-lewin.htm. Lewin’s freeze phases: http://changingminds.org

Culture and leadership

Culture can most simply be defined as how we view and do things. Within our community we construct our own world (see theories of constructivism: Barthes, 1967; Geertz, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978; Berger and Luckmann, 2003). Thus, culture is a shared set of meanings and interpretations of a collective (a group, a community). Culture is embedded invisibly in the deep structure, which is called the core or inner layer, and has fundamental impacts on perception and behavior patterns. The outer layers are visible. The inner layer (“basic assumptions”) influences the way we cope with daily life, solve problems and meet changes and challenges. Culture defines our perception of truth and shapes corporate identity (Schein, 2004). Thus, we might summarize, culture is a social construction based on shared experiences manifested in history, the way we talk about the past or celebrate memory, and expressed in languages. Culture, finally, enables members of a group or community to function together and find meanings of their existence. Consequently, culture has several functions. First it is a system of orientation, second it defines identity, and third it supports internal integration and external adaptation. It is constructed by and refers to the process of defining meaning in which a collective is involved. The “meaning-” or “sense-making” process of how to adapt to and cope with the environment “derives from the human need to make our environment as sensible and orderly as we can ... Disorder or senselessness makes us anxious, so we will work hard to reduce that anxiety by


Further reading and websites


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM


developing a more consistent and predictable view of how things are and how they should be” (Schein, 2004:15). To continue in Schein’s concept, we can say people struggle to make sense of and cope with their worlds. By interaction among the group members, culture is constantly enacted and created. On the one hand culture is the result of functionally effective decisions in the group’s past experiences. On the other hand, in spite of its dynamic characteristics, it fulfills the function of providing stability, meaning, and predictability in the present. Within this context of stabilization and creation, leaders are perpetual “sense-makers,” as they should relate their mission – in Schein’s words “directly to what organizations call strategy” (2004:91) – and guide their followers towards an adaptive future to ensure the viability and survival, thus sustainability, of their organizations. Whether a culture is adaptive or not depends not on the culture alone, but on the relationship of the culture to the environment in which it exists. In this regard, Schein concludes that if leaders cannot lead their groups or organizations to succeed in adapting to the changing environment, they will be considered to have failed as leaders. To change the culture within an organization towards adaptability, the leaders have to know how to demystify the existing culture and to unveil the dysfunctional aspects of it. In other words, they have to explore the deeper layer, the basic assumptions of a culture by becoming aware of them. To achieve this, they first have to develop a deep insight and cultural awareness, as “the best way to demystify the concept of culture is first of all to become aware of culture in our own experience, to perceive how something comes to be shared and taken for granted, and to observe this particularly in new groups that we enter and belong to” (Schein, 2004:63). Culture is essential for successful organizational development and change. Schein goes further, as he believes that culture may be a necessary condition for organizational success in terms of adaptability to survive. However, it is by no means the only condition. An important challenge for leaders and managers is, therefore, to find out what the most effective culture is for their community or organization, and whether it requires radical versus limited change, or change on which levels or in which layers. Hence, a complete paradigm shift may not be the most effective solution. In this regard, I suggest the goal should not just be survival as a reaction to the need but sustainable survival as an interaction with the need. When change is recognized as necessary, leaders need not only the ability to induce change but also enough time to involve their followers


42


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

in the incremental process of change. “Unlearning” or “unfreezing” the old culture and creating motivation for change requires courage, selfconfidence, and self-insight as well as a lot of effort from the leaders. They are role models of leadership not merely in the way they lead and manage organizational change, but also in the way they attain sustainable survival, in other words continuous improvement and transformation. It will take them several years to accomplish and to alleviate the numerous uncertainties. Reducing anxiety, providing safety through a positive vision, positive learning climate and processes and through positive group dynamics needs not only management skills but also leadership which is flexible enough to allow for transformation incorporating positive cultural change (Kouzes and Posner, 2007, 1998; Schein, 2004). The organizational culture requires more than knowledge of rational and technical management; the focus has to be on the qualitative, symbolic aspects of organization and management. Leadership, representing corporate responsibility and integrity and creating a changeoriented culture as well as the need to learn and unlearn processes, has been considered increasingly important for success not only in the business world, but also generally when coping with the challenges of the future and how to ensure long-term survival. Reflection and discussion issues Debate the following questions and try to find consensus in a group, and reflect your results with a partner or a coach: ●

●

●

●

What is an “excellent way of life“ from economic, political, socio-cultural, and spiritual points of view? Does your definition of an “excellent way of life” conform with the understanding of others? What meanings should be represented by the leadership quality that promotes the defined “excellent way of life“? What conclusions do you draw for yourself as a leader when talking about culture and leadership?

Further reading ●


Culture 43

Pedersen, P. (1997). “Doing the right thing: a question of ethics,” in Cushner, K. & R. Bislin (eds), Improving Intercultural Interactions, Vol. 2, pp. 149–165. Thousand Oaks, Sage.


10/5/2010 12:39:55 PM

3

3.1

Two major leadership orientations

Leadership has increasingly become the focus of attention of many academic disciplines, business fields, and in political discourses (Western, 2008; Bennis, 2003; Gardner, 1989). Many organizations and companies of different sectors are in need of capable leadership to strengthen them and to pilot them through unforeseen circumstances (Center for Creative Leadership, 2009). The search for the ideal leadership style and type has been continuing to fill the list of literature and education programs. According to Northouse (2001), there are at least 65 different classification systems defining the dimensions of leadership. Considering the multitude of ways in which leadership could be viewed and conceptualized, four main components are suggested by Northouse (2001) as central of the leadership’s phenomenon: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Leadership is a process. Leadership involves influence. Leadership occurs within a group context. Leadership involves goal attainment.

Leadership needs followers and subordinates that must be organized and manage to achieve determined goals. Furthermore, it is not simply the leader in the fore who drives organizational success; but it depends on the ability of formal and informal leaders within an organization to pull together in the achievement of the joint goal that makes the success of the organization and community (Center for Creative Leadership, 2009). Hence, leadership is not about the leaders themselves but about the relationships among them and with others. Western (2008) stated that leadership is commonly researched


Leadership

44


10/5/2010 10:12:53 AM

Leadership

45

1. As a process, it should be considered as continuous developing, thus flexible, adaptive and improving. 2. Considering influences, it should focus on challenges and change rather than upon a person’s force and power. 3. In reference to the context, it should be less individualized but more collective and environment-sensitive. 4. Concerning goal attainment, it should embrace various resources and potentials. The model trans-cultural leadership will be discussed thoroughly in Chapter 5. The concept of “trans-culture,” which will be explained below in Section 5.2, is of contemporary theories of culture. Therefore, trans-cultural leadership can be defined as the new emerging leadership paradigm such as transformational leadership (Funakawa, 1997; Bryman, 1992; Tichy and Devanna, 1986; see also table 3.3). Both are still objects of current leadership studies. To make the concept of trans-cultural leadership understandable, I would like to briefly introduce the development of leadership theories by presenting two major leadership orientations. One orientation focuses on favorable traits of leadership, the other on behavior acquired and developed through processes. Supporting these two orientations are a number of theories and approaches (Northouse, 2001; Grint, 1997; Gardner, 1989). 3.1.1 Traits of leadership The first systematic attempts to study leadership in the 20th century were the “great man“ and trait theories. They focused on identifying the key characteristics and qualities of successful leaders. Some “great” people, such as Gandhi, Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln, possessed favorable traits. Stodgill, Mann, Lord, DeVader and Alliger, and many others attempted to list the main traits of the “would-be” leaders, such as intelligence, self-confidence, persistence, responsibility, tolerance, sociability, integrity, insight, etc. (Bolden et al., 2003; Northouse, 2001;


as the property of an individual actor. This way of thinking fits the heroic celebration narrated in history, stories, and films. He pointed up a more critical and collective approach to leadership. Following his suggestion and related to Sections 2.4 and 2.5, in which I discuss the interdependency between culture and leadership for change, I continue these thoughts with the components of leadership and propose a model of trans-cultural leadership based on four extensions. The extensions refer to Northouse’s components:


10/5/2010 10:12:53 AM


Higgs, 2000; Stogdill, 1974, see, table 3.1). Although the researchers believed that some attributes of personality bring leadership forward, they could not guarantee the success of the advantages. The research publications on leadership have been growing and the list of traits appears endless and inconsistent. The weakness of the traits orientation is that either the interpretation of the traits vary depending on the researchers and their scientific scope, or the trait has to be reduced or labeled to a type, which is bound to the socio-cultural, historical and ideological context and preferences. In other words, leadership traits cannot be isolated from the environment in which the leadership occurs. Some traits might be beneficial in certain situations, but not in others, depending on the context which favors a certain leadership’s disposition. Traits and the character of a personality are not enough to mobilize the group or an organization to achieve its goal for transformation. Consequently, neither the outcomes nor the productivity resulting from the interplay between the leader and his/her environment could be produced from the personality’s attributes alone. The focus of this orientation is too much emphasized on traits, and thus on innate qualities, and is therefore for many scientists less useful for training and development of leadership (Northouse, 2001), since effect cannot be separated from cause and vice versa. For example, does self-confidence strengthen the success of leadership, or to what extent does success strengthen a leader’s self-confidence (Robbins, 2003)? In spite of these critical arguments the traits’ approach and interpretative variability are Table 3.1 Traits and Attributes of Leadership Stogdill (1974)

Gardner (1989)

Intelligence Insight Self-confidence Persistence Influence Achievement Initiative Responsibility Cooperativeness Tolerance Sociability

Intelligence Understanding Achievement Drive Courage Resolution Trustworthiness Decisiveness Self-confidence Assertiveness Adaptability and flexibility


46


10/5/2010 10:12:53 AM

47

still in use in human resource management for the recruitment and selection of people for certain leadership positions as well as for the education of personal awareness and development. For the study of transformational and charismatic leadership, traits theories move back into the focus of training research. Leadership scholars generalize certain characteristics as being important, for example, intelligence, high self-insight, sociability, self-confidence, and resilience. Certain favorable traits for leadership are suggested as being easily acquired in a personality development training program which confirms how many people and organizations spend an amount of money in such programs (Bergemann and Bergemann, 2005). Despite the fact that not all people have the same potential to lead well, the question still remains: Does personality training and development guarantee leadership success, and thus a better working condition? Personality development programs might help some leaders to become assertive, strong, eloquent, sociable, decisive, and so on. And in believing so, they improve their appearance in encounters with others: they are good leaders. However, to assure and mobilize others to change requires much more than just the embellishment of appearances. Accordingly, appointed leaders should get to know themselves first: their personality, their strengths, and their effects on others, then to offset their weaknesses by going beyond their comfort zone and turning the model of transformational leaders and learners for others. To sum up, they: have a positive self-image are high on the personality trait, such as openness to new experiences show willingness to develop themselves take challenges and change as their chance of potential are high self-monitors.

● ● ● ● ●


●

Explore, find, and compare examples of charismatic leadership in a certain field (socio-political field vs economic field) or between different companies. Discuss what makes “charisma.” Can charisma be generalized independently of the context and cultural background? To what extent can charisma be individually developed? To what extent is charisma dependent on the followers and the situation causing the need of certain type of charisma?


Leadership


10/5/2010 10:12:53 AM

48


Leadership based on behavioral theories concentrates less on the “being” and more on the “doing” of the leaders: what they do and especially how they act towards whom and in what kinds of situation (Bolden et al., 2003; Northouse, 2001). Two main dimensions of behaviors are defined: task and relationship-oriented behaviors. The purpose of this approach is not to divide behavioral orientation, but the key of being an effective leader often rests on how the leader balances these two behaviors to guide and influence followers in their efforts to achieve a goal. In contrast to traits leadership, the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinates remains in the focus of this approach (Kouzes and Posner, 2007, 1998). In interaction with their environment, leaders can learn about themselves and improve their leadership quality by combining and balancing different behaviors and styles. This approach has attracted most attention in training and coaching programs for managers and leaders and meets the requirements of leadership in terms of globalization and pluralism, as outlined in Section 2.1 above. For example, based on behavioral theories, the situational approach sees leadership as specific to the circumstance in which it is practiced (Grint, 1997; Hersey, 1984). As mentioned above, the approach suggests a flexible leadership style adapting to the demands of different levels and of different situations. The leaders recognize what subordinates need and improve the relationship by matching their behavioral pattern. Hersey (1984) suggested the combination of four leadership styles that leaders apply to adjust their focus either more on the task or more on the relationship quality, depending on the maturity of the subordinates/followers: Delegating style gives the group more responsibility, and is therefore a low-task, low-relationship style. The followers are mature and have high self-confidence; they feel secure enough to manage themselves for goal attainment. At the same time they feel responsible for the quality of relationship without the need for constant supervision provided by the leader.

●


3.1.2 Behaviors of leadership

Participating style enhances shared ideas, and is considered as a low-task, high-relationship style. In this situation the followers are still in the process of understanding and in the development of confidence. Relationship building is therefore important. ●

● Selling style emphasizes task directions in a supportive and persuasive way, and is therefore a high-task, high-relationship style. Here


10/5/2010 10:12:53 AM

Leadership

49

● Finally, telling style is a high-task, low-relationship orientation. The followers feel insecure; trust is not established yet. Leaders have to give clear instruction and set up clear structure. Telling is supervising. Telling style occurs in the very early stages of a relationship, when people do not know each other well. Trust must be established for a group’s positive climate of exchange.

Figure 3.1 summarizes Hersey’s conceptualization of leadership. The weakness of Hersey’s model application is that the leadership style is too much focused on individual need which is variable and depends on the context and the group’s dynamics. So, individuals behave differently in different settings and groups. The application of Hersey’s model to a group’s behaviors requires sophistication, elaboration, and the awareness of the circumstances. Still, the model of situational leadership provides flexible adaptation and can be used as a kind of navigator while leading others. Hersey et al. (1996) developed the model further to leadership strategies for organizational change. They made

Enabling

high directive low supportive

Enforcing

Enlisting

low supportive low directive

Endorsing

Relationship Behavior

Selling high directive high supportive

−

Inspiring Actions

+

Participating high supportive low directive


the followers need persuasive explanations to make tasks comprehensible; and at the same time the relationship must be meaningful for them.

Delegating −

Figure 3.1

Task Behavior Structuring Actions

Telling +

Hersey’s Situational Leadership Model


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM

50


●

●

●

●

Endorsing: The organization is open and versatile, and is committed to change. Leaders do not need to give too much structure. The relationship is well established, the focus on transformation. The process is smooth, as the team feels inspired for change and is committed to the organization’s vision and goals. Enlisting: The organization is perceptive and understands the need for change. However, it is still insecure and ambivalent towards change. The leader’s inspiration and vision must be convincing. Enabling: The organization is inept but cooperative and concerned about change. It supports the vision of transformation. Here, leaders just need to give guidelines on how to implement change. Enforcing: The organization is split and fragmented. Different opinions and interests, and insecurity about direction, block the transformation process. Resistance dominates. Leaders have to provide security and give structure in the process first.

Behavioral theories such as the situational and the path-goal approaches are often suggested as convenient for cross-cultural management. For instance, introducing Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions one assumes that participative leadership should work best in low power distance cultures, while directive leadership should work best in high power distance societies. This implies, however, that the leader is required to be aware of his/her cultural background first, then sensitive to the culture of subordinates, before applying the appropriate leadership style. The cultural awareness of self and others makes actions more conceivable and impacts of these actions more predictable. This provides some feelings of security amid challenges and change. Security and trust are important in organizational and cultural change; the function of the leader as “reliable anchor“ in this situation is a prerequisite condition (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5, above). Therefore, traits and behaviors cannot be separated from each other. They are, in fact, codependent. To know which behaviors are most suitable in a given situation, leaders should be aware of how their personality helps and hinders their leadership effectiveness. Being conscious of their strengths and weaknesses and those of others, they adapt their


a distinction between inspiring actions and structuring actions along relationship and task orientations. Task behaviors are correlated with structuring actions, and relationship behaviors with inspiring actions. In addition, they introduced four leadership strategies according to the needs of an organization (see figure 3.1) as follows:


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM

Leadership

51

strategies in forming and sustaining followers’ relationships and attentions for the achievement of goals.

●

●

●

●

●

What components of leadership does trans-cultural leadership draw upon? What are the purposes of traits theories, and where and what would you pay attention to in order to anticipate misjudgment? How and when would you integrate traits theories for personality recruitment and personality development? To what extent do behavior theories of leadership differ from traits theories? What are the strong and weak points of the situational approach of leadership? In which situation and under what conditions would you apply it?


●

Discuss in a multinational group and in a multidisciplinary group what everybody understands of terms such as “trustworthy,” “assertive,” “entrepreneurial,” “caring,” “honest,” “encouraging,” “foresight,” “flexible,” “adaptive,” “tolerant,” and let them select three qualities among ten items they would attribute to good leadership. What conclusions would you draw from this experience? Discuss in your group when task orientation and relationship orientation would be adequate. When do you get a homogeneous opinion, and when a heterogeneous opinion? What conclusions do you draw from this observation?


●

Find out about different approaches of leadership style, the historical roots of them, and the analogies and differences of the value systems they are based on. Discuss the different types of leadership in a group of multinational backgrounds and in a national group of multidisciplinary backgrounds. Then, try to explain the preferences of leadership style in reference to social value systems and in reference to specific situations and process phases. Verify the applicability of Hersey’s leadership model in your own group, community or company, and develop an extended model of more differentiation due to a leader’s personality and to collective belief systems in relationship with their followers/subordinates.


Summary questions


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM

52


●

●

● ●

● ●

3.2

Gardner, Pierre J. L. & R. B. Dunham (2002). Management and Organizational Behavior: An Integrated Perspective. Cincinnati, South-Western College. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. and Johnson, D. (1996) Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources. London, Prentice-Hall. Northouse, Peter G. (2001) Leadership – Theory and Practice. London, Sage. Ray, Michael & Alan Rinzler (1993). The New Paradigm in Business. Emerging Strategies for Leadership and Organizational Change. New York, Tarcher&Pergee. Leadership tools: www.mindtools.com/ Leadership development theories: www.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au

Transformational and transactional leadership

Transformational and transactional leadership models are categorized as the new leadership paradigm, which gained dominance in the 1990s (Northouse, 2001; Grint, 1997; Bryman, 1992; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). In business fields, both models are linked to charismatic and strategic leadership, but the distinction between the models is somewhat blurred. Transformational leadership embraces a wide range of styles and levels, from very specific attempts to influence followers on a one-to-one level to very broad attempts to influence whole organizations and even the environment in which the organization or community is located (Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Northouse referred to transformational leadership as “the process whereby an individual engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. This type of leader is attentive to the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers reach their fullest potential” (2001:132). Similarly to transformational leadership, transactional leadership also emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the leader and the followers. However, the reciprocal benefits, through which the leader delivers rewards or recognition in return for the commitment or loyalty of the followers, are derived from a kind of “contract” (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Transactional leadership is less concerned with the transformation either of organizational performance or within the followers’ orientations. In other words, the transformational leaders set high goals of change and take responsibility for their commitments. They are concerned with collective well-being, and can inspire and motivate their followers to cross their comfort zone in order to go beyond their potential. In this sense transformational leadership is universally


Further reading and websites


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM

Leadership

53

(a) “raising followers’ levels of consciousness about the importance and value of specified and idealized goals, (b) getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team or organization, and moving followers to address higherlevel needs”. (Bass cited by Northouse, 2001:135) In short, transformational leaders transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, the organization, and the community. The relationship between transformational leader and followers/subordinates is of emotional attachment; the leader pays much attention to the development and performance of followers to their fullest potential. The identification of followers with leader is therefore intense and is based on trust and faith. In order to inspire and motivate followers the leader has the ability to communicate a clear vision and stimulates them intellectually into finding and creating new ways to overcome problems or to perceive challenges as opportunities for positive change. In order to pursue the vision, the leader is skilled at holding the team, community, or whole organization together in the achievement of a common goal, and can pay followers personal attention as well as empathize with their individual concerns (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership is characterized by the four Is: 1. Idealized influence: Leader is a role model for others. His/her personality has a positive impact on followers’ development. They can identify with his/her being and doing. 2. Inspirational motivation: Leader provides meaning, vision, and hope with the followers, and enhances team spirit, and thus cohesion, by establishing relationship-based interactions. 3. Intellectual stimulation: Leader stimulates creativity and innovation in search for new solutions. He/she fosters growth in followers’ strategies to challenges. 4. Individual consideration: While focusing on team spirit, leader is still concerned with individual needs, and is thus a mentor of individual improvement. The appraisal for the individual ensures the motivation for the well-being of all.


applicable (Bass and Riggio, 2006), and is not tied to any cultural paradigm. Transformational leaders need to have an affecting charisma, as according to Bass (1985) and Conger (1989), they are able to empower followers to do more than they expected by doing the following:


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM


Applying Schein (2004), organizational change needs transformational leadership of the four Is (I call them four eyes) that are sensitive to invisible basic assumptions and anticipate challenges for the organizational transition (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5). According to general leadership experts, transformational leaders get the greatest attraction and attention, especially in times of crisis and disorientation, and when people are longing for turnaround and new solutions (Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Furthermore, McFarlin and Sweeney (2005) made an additional observation that transformational leadership, which is generally perceived as applicable in all countries, is inconsistently not applicable everywhere. He mentioned critically that in collectivistic societies like in Japan the individualized consideration of transformational leadership causes irritation rather than fostering personal motivation and improvement. Personally, I believe it depends on how the individualized consideration is verbally and non-verbally communicated. Even in collectivistic societies individual needs can be neither ignored nor denied. Relationship-oriented communication implies being attentive to the partner’s needs by showing respect and interest. In Section 5.1 below we will discuss the application of different leadership styles in reference to different “national” cultures, and whether as well as when task or relationship orientation and transformational leadership promise more success in communication between leader and followers.

Reflection and discussion issues Charismatic leaders: Some experts believe that “charisma” can be learned and acquired by following a three-step process: “First, an individual needs to develop the aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view; using passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm; and communicating with the whole body, not just with words. Second, an individual draws others in by creating a bond that inspires others to follow. And third, the individual brings out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions” (Robbins, 2003:342). Discuss and explore: ●

●


54

What characteristics could be generalized as winsome a) in a multinational and multidisciplinary group, b) in which context or environment, for example, in the foundation time of an organization, in time of crisis and uncertainty, in time of consolidation of status quo, in time of rapid change? What are the benefits and the limits of charismatic leaders, and the difference in the achievement and performance between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders?


10/5/2010 10:12:54 AM

Leadership

55

Further reading

3.3

Conger, Jay A. & Rabindra N. Kanun (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Leadership and management

Leadership is often used in reference to politics and ideology. How does this apply to business sectors or in social organizations? Are managers not leaders? Can a leader be a manager? What is the difference? Discussions about differences of management and leadership have been going on for many years. Zaleznik (2004) distinguished leadership by contrasting. Managers produce order and consistency, thus seek stability by planning, organizing, and controlling. They are rational regulators, and influence behaviors of subordinates by structuring. Emotional attachment to the followers is not that important, as they are generally task-oriented, and motivation is based on material rewards. Although leadership is a process that is similar to management, its focus is on change, development, and transitional movement by providing vision, communicating, motivating, and inspiring. Grace Murray Hopper, a leader in the field of software development concepts in 1930s, believed one might manage things, but one had to lead people. Her plea for the transition from primitive programming techniques to the use of sophisticated compilers made her a pioneering female leader. She said the way “we’ve always done was not necessarily a good reason to continue to do so” (Quoted from: http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/ hopperstory.html (date access 6 August, 2010). Bennis (2003), a recent scientist and consultant, made the differences between managers and leaders clear with distinctions as outlined in table 3.2. Is this dichotomic comparison over-simplified? Couldn’t any manager wishing to effect changes in their business environment be visionary – an attribution which is related to leadership? Good managers may well be visionary. Both good managers and good leaders should be able to take their organizations to a development stage that it would not have otherwise achieved without them. Although the inspiration of vision cannot be taught, this means neither that managers are personalities without vision nor that they could not be trained for visioning. Managers and leaders both need strategies to mobilize and influence their people. Managers might tend to monitor and get tasks done in a defined amount of time; and with the need for efficiency


●


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM


The manager administers

The leader innovates

The manager is a copy

The leader is an original

The manager maintains

The leader develops.

The manager focuses on systems and structure

The leader focuses on people

The manager relies on control

The leader inspires trust

The manager accepts reality

The leader investigates it

The manager has a short-range view

The leader has a long-range perspective

The manager asks how and when

The leader asks what and why

The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line

The leader has his or her eye on the horizon

The manager imitates

The leader originates

The manager accepts the status quo

The leader challenges it

The manager does things right

The leader does the right thing

time management is their most important skill. Leaders, however, are expected to find strategies not only to use limited resources efficiently, but also to give essential meaning to their doings. Although the distinctions between management and leadership are often made, many scientists emphasize the need for both qualities. Or they compare managers with transactional leadership, and transformational leaders are considered as the leaders. Kotter (1996) viewed leadership and management as two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment. It is obviously anticipated that good managers should be good leaders, and good leaders should have management competencies. However, Kotter emphasized, “successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management” (1996:26). He explained: “Managing change is important. Without competent management, the transformation process can get out of control. But for most organizations, the much bigger challenge is leading change. Only leadership can blast through the many sources of corporate inertia. Only leadership can motivate the actions needed to alter behavior in any significant way. Only leadership can get change to stick by anchoring it in the very culture of an organization” (1996:30). Relating to Section 1.1


Table 3.2 Bennis’s Differentiation between Management and Leadership


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM

57

above on leaders and the challenges of the 21st century, any manager or leader facing challenges must mobilize people to set change in motion, when they don’t want to be defined, and finally determined by the challenges of the business and the environment. Leaders and managers should be able to develop strategies and solutions to achieve their goals (Fullan, 2001). The drivers of goals are shared meaningful visions for a cultural, thus organizational change in times of disorientation (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5, above). The key to transformation lies in the hands of those leaders challenging the taken-for-granted comfort zone into a new direction. This is just the beginning of the long road towards change; management skills are still required for doing the right thing, in the right time, with the right people.

Reflection and discussion issues Managing diversity initiatives seek to fully develop the potential of each employee and turn the different sets of skills that each employee brings into a business advantage. Through fostering the difference, team creativity, innovation and problem-solving can be enhanced. The focus is therefore, much more on the individual rather than the group. Having a diverse workforce not only enables organisations to understand and meet customer demand better, but also helps attract investors and clients, as well as reduce the costs associated with disorientation. (Davidson and Fielden, 2003:22) Discuss the following issues: ● ●

●

What is managing diversity? What are the key characteristics? Is managing diversity a matter of being a good manager? Or what would the difference between management of diversity and leadership of diversity be? In what ways can a diverse workforce improve organizational productivity and creativity? Which potential does it offer for organizational accomplishment? What would the role of a good leader be when applying managing diversity?

Further reading and websites ●

●

●

●


Leadership

Davidson, Marilyn J. & Sandra L. Fielden (2003). Individual Diversity and Psychology in Organizations. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Pedersen, Paul B. (2000). A Handbook for Developing Multicultural Awareness. Alexandria, American Counseling Association. Roosevelt, Thomas R. (1991). Beyond Race and Gender. Unleashing the Power of Your Total Work Force by Managing Diversity. New York, Amacom. Research and resources on diversity: www.edchange.org


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM

58

3.4


Leadership, power, and ethics

The potential to influence followers and subordinates means power. Power is important:

Core values (ethics) are essential for the quality of the basic assumptions, and thus the culture in which we wish to live. Core values define the direction in which we want to go. They shape the aspects and the depth of relationships, which give, accordingly, quality and stability to a community and an organization. Pursuant to Higgs (2000), the emotional intelligence of leaders becomes powerful and essential, when it comes into use to engage others in relationships to common commitment. In an organization, leaders have power either through position assigned within an organization or through personal potential attributed by the followers/subordinates, as they believe leaders have something of value they identify with (see Section 3.2, above; Northouse, 2001). French and Raven (1959) listed five types of power related to leadership: 1. Reward: The leader’s influence is based on reward, which can be either material (higher salary, payments, bonuses, gifts ...) or immaterial (recognition, promotion, shared interest, friendship ...). 2. Coercive: The leader guides by controlling, applying sanctions, restrictions, punishments, or reduction of benefits. 3. Legitimate: The leader is officially appointed to be a leader, and thus has the right to be a leader, for example, due to his/her position in the hierarchy of an organization or of a community, due to legal election and selection, due to traditional heritage. 4. Referent: The leader gets respect and power based on those qualities that the followers admire, and (unconsciously) wish to possess, and those that they identify with. 5. Expert: The leader has influence as a result of expertise, special skills, and competencies.


1. to define core values 2. to steer processes and set structure 3. to influence relationships’ quality.

Information power is often added by other scientists and is interpreted as an integral part of expert power. Certain leaders incorporate


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM

59

just one kind of type of power; some others a combination of these, which would strengthen their leadership competencies. Power is often invisible and concealed. The absence of power does not necessarily mean the inexistence of power; it can cover up conflict as much as it can be the cause of it. Power is commonly defined in management literature as the ability to effect outcomes or to control valued resources (Western, 2008). Whether soft or hard, the usage of power is not a guarantee that one can get what one wishes to have. Power is not an entity attributed just to the leader (Imbusch, 1998). Foucault (2005) noticed where there is power there is resistance. Being in a position of power makes leaders vulnerable; they are exposed to the power dynamics and tactics of others and in groups. It is often this vulnerability that creates anxiety for both sides – the leader and the followers. This vulnerability often results in power play and a misuse of power of all sides, which disguises fear of the loss of control (Western, 2008; Imbusch, 1998). So, for Foucault (2005), power and resistance are interdependent. Power is dynamic, and fluid, thus everywhere; and therefore it is difficult to control power permanently. Power can be competed with (for example, by building coalitions competing with each other), moved (from one individual or group to another), removed and taken (for example by force, sanction, degradation), fragmented (by splitting into groups, divisions), or shared (everybody feels empowered and supported by each other). Lastly, subordinates can be empowered without diminishing the leader’s power, depending on the leader’s reaction and action (Western, 2008; Foucault, 2005). Power is differentiated by some experts in hard and soft power (Nye, 2008). One can exert power by threatening or applying sanctions. Or one can bind people by the usage of attraction and duty. Hard power does not evidence more potency than soft power. Much depends on the context and on the culture and values, as well as on the strategies and skillful leadership to mobilize others to achieve the common goal. For Higgs (2000), power is mostly an invisible energy, such as emotional intelligence. Other experts, such as Nye (2008), compare it with the attractiveness of wisdom enhancing credibility, legitimacy, and accountability. For transformation, Higgs (2000) emphasized the impact of emotional intelligence on leadership competencies. According to him, emotional intelligence implies self-awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, interpersonal sensitivity, influence (here power), intuitiveness, conscientiousness, and integrity. Conscientiousness is meant as the ability to keep awareness, consciousness, and consistency in difficult situations and challenges such as change, tensions, and conflicts (Higgs and McGuire, 2001). In


Leadership


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM


reference to organizational life, emotional intelligence empowers leaders to develop in self and others the ability to identify binding aspects to retain individuals on long-term social contracts in order to maintain a collectively shared safety. According to Burns (1978), the consistency of power depends on the structure and quality of the relationship between leader and subordinates. Leaders with high self-confidence and self-consistency (or emotional resilience) are able to empower their followers to challenge the challenges, and thus to promote change and achievement, and at the same time by doing it they gain credit and confidence from the followers (Duffy, 2008). In Sections 2.4 and 2.5 above we discussed that it is impossible to separate leadership from culture. Indeed, the conceptualization of leadership is based on basic assumptions (cultural pattern) and thus bound to values and ethical issues. Behind attributes such as “fair,” “trustworthy,” “honest,” “responsible,” etc. there are value systems giving meaning to the notions. Ethical theories about leadership concern virtue-based characters as well as the conduct of the leaders: for example, how they respond in a situation driven by their ethics. The ethical theories of conduct focus either on the consequences of leaders’ actions (driven by ethical egoism or utilitarianism – teleological or consequentialist approach), or on the duty and rules governing leaders’ actions (deontological approach). Ethics plays an utmost important role in leadership, as leaders have ethical responsibility (deontological argumentation) for how they affect not only the way in which their team interact, but also for how they influence the environment in which they exercise power (teleological argumentation). They have a major impact on establishing and promoting the ethical climate within their community and organization as well as between their organization and the environment. In a multicultural society of diverging interests leaders are challenging with different ethical tensions and dilemmas. As leadership acts out ethics based on implicit assumptions and shapes organizational culture performance; leaders should be not just sensitive to the diversity of value systems but more confident in the core values they are effusing and thus contributing essential meanings to the quality of organizational and cultural development, especially in situations of giving meaning to the new orientation. They can maximize positive influence while reducing negative influences. For effective transformation leaders know how to use power and politics to counteract ethical abuse in terms of safety and fairness. According to Duffy, leaders at all levels and in all fields have the role of “excellent politicians (...) knowing where people stand and understanding the dimensions of an issue ... for effective conflict


60


10/5/2010 10:12:55 AM

61

resolution” (Duffy, 2008:3–4). He explained, “To make a real difference change leaders ... need to affect decisions and events” (ibid.:5). For he believed, “political behavior at its most positive influences others in ethical ways to join with others to achieve common goals and dreams” (ibid.:5). Raynolds et al. agreed that good leadership is “inseparable from irreproachable ethics, role modeling the value of doing the right thing, and being guided by a sound moral compass (...) People respect and willingly follow leaders who embody the chosen values of the community or group” (Raynolds et al., 2007:37). The credibility of a leader lies in maintaining integrity, credibility, and accountability in the interests of the well-being of the followers (Bass and Riggio, 2006). This includes the awareness of the risks that any particular action or activity will pose on followers in the process of facing uncertainties. Sharing power and risks is stabilizing and supports transformation on all levels. In an organization, leadership does not remain on the top level, but must exist on or be shared at all levels in a system. This strengthens the organization, and thus leadership is not a personal matter but a collective responsibility. In this way transformation can occur from within the mindset and spread out in all dimensions; core values expressed through vision are not just implemented in the action plan but also lived out (see Section 2.4).


●

●

How do you define power? What gives an individual or a group influence over others? What other form of power has more mightiness to bind and mobilize people than the use of force? How can leaders apply ethics to motivate their community for a new organizational culture?


●

●


Leadership

In reference to power and influence, what would be the difference between managers and leaders? Explain the reciprocal effects between power and ethical conduct of leaders. Discuss the role of leaders in ethical dilemmas, and what they should do. Within this context, what are the trappings of symmetric and asymmetric power? How interpretative and manipulative are ethical dilemmas?


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM

62


●

●

Explore and analyze the values and ethical orientation of heroes/leaders who are known for achieving transformation while promoting certain vision and goals. Debate with others and find arguments for your standpoint as a leader in the discussion about profit maximizing and economic survival versus human values of cooperation and economic moderation. Then analyze the value systems the argumentations are based on. Observe and note when you were convincing in the debate, and finally find out on what levels you were convincing.


●

●

●

3.5

Bass, Bernard (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York, Free Press. Hersey, P., Kenneth, B. and Johnson, D. (1996). Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources. London, Prentice-Hall. Northouse, Peter G. (2001). Leadership – Theory and Practice. London, Sage. Leadership tools: www.mindtools.com/

Leadership competencies

The interest in leadership has always existed especially on the identification of effective leadership and is therefore not new. In spite of the many increasing theories and searches for new models in different academic disciplines and in the business domain, the basic meaning of leadership has not changed. It has always been about the phenomenon of the relationship between leader and followers, forming and organizing together a community for the achievement of a goal. Higgs (2000) summarized five categories of theoretical constructs of leadership to historical development and preferences (see table 3.3). In a highly volatile and rapidly changing environment the transformational model gets the most attraction and fits the needs of the 21st century. Strong visionary leadership that promises a better future is more likely recognized as a “force multiplier” and reaches out to followers hungry for change. When managers in times of economic crisis seem to fail, as they are not perceived as successful in promotion of new directions, leadership becomes not just important and convincing, but swiftly separated from management. Transformational leadership especially is attributed with qualities such as courage, adaptability, and


Possible areas for projects of discovery and discussion


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM

Leadership

63

Period

Predominant school

1920s

Predominant constructs

Key References

Trait theory

Leadership can be understood by identifying the distinguishing characteristics of great leaders

Weber (1947)

1950s

Style theory

Leadership effectiveness may be explained and developed by identifying appropriate styles and behaviours

Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958)

1960s

Contigency theory

Leadership occurs in a context. Leadership style must be exercised depending on each situation

Fiedler (1967) Hersey & Blanchard (1969)

1970s

Charismatic theory

Leadership is concerned with the charismatic behaviours of leaders and their ability to transform organisations

House (1976) Bums (1978) Conger & Kanungo (1988) Bryman (1992)

1980s

New Leadership/NeoCharismatic School

Leadership and management are different. Leaders require a transformational focus which emcompasses a range of characteristics and behaviours in addition to charisma

Bass (1985) Avolio & Bass (1995; 1997) Conger & Kanungo (1988) Shamir (1992) Bennis (1985) Alimo-Mecalfe (1995)

Late 1990s

Emerging Approaches

Leadership may be understood by examination of strategic decision-making by executives Leadership is inexorably linked to the management of change Leader behaviours may be understood in the context of the work of delivering change

Finhelstein & Hambrick (1996) Hambrick & Brandon (1998) Kotter (1994) Higgs & Rowland (2000) Conner (1999)

Strategic Leadership Change Leadership


Table 3.3 Higgs’ Categories of Leadership Construction


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM


the ability to go beyond the status quo, enhancing common benefits and balancing different power relations. In spite of the trend of distinctions between leadership and management, both have a considerable amount of overlap and are an integral part of each other. A good manager must have vision, integrity, and influence, as much as a good leader is well concerned with efficiency and outputs. Leaders have to be convincing. Being a leader has always implied having influence (power and the authority) on the process and the structure within the group (effects on the organization) and outside the group (effects on the environment). Power could be defined in five to six different categories. So much depends on how the leaders manage the quality of the relationship between themselves, the followers/subordinates, and the environment in such a way that power becomes empowering for the benefit of the whole group, the organization, the community, and the environment. According to behavioral theories everyone can be a leader, as leadership can be acquired and developed, and thus trained. Leadership is not just at the top, but also at every level where formal and informal leaders step out and forward with new solutions and creative strategies. People want to follow someone who is competent and inspiring, and who has qualities they can identify with. Higgs and Rowland (cited by Higgs, 2000:199–200) identified a set of leadership competencies referring to the implementation of successful change: 1. Creating the case for change: effectively engaging others in recognizing the business need for change 2. Creating structural change: ensuring that change is based on depth of understanding of issues and supported with a consistent set of tools and processes 3. Engaging others in the whole change process and building commitment 4. Implementing and sustaining changes: developing effective plans and ensuring good monitoring and review practices are developed 5. Facilitating and developing capability: ensuring that people are challenged to find their own answers and that they are supported in doing this.


64

Similar to Higgs, Kouzes and Posner (2007) proposed five practices of competence: 1. Model the way by clarifying values (find your voice, affirm shared values, reflection, and action), and by setting an example for


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM

65

others (personify the shared values, teach others to model the values, reflection and action). 2. Inspire a shared vision of a change by envisioning the future (imagine the possibilities, find a common purpose, reflection and action), and by enlisting others (appeal to common ideals, animate the vision, reflection and action). 3. Challenge the process by searching for opportunities (seize the initiative, exercise outsight, reflection and action), and by experimenting and taking risks (generate small wins, learn from experience, reflection and action). 4. Enabling others to act by fostering collaboration (create a climate of trust, facilitate relationships, reflection and action), and by strengthening others (enhance self-determination, develop competence and confidence, reflection and action). 5. Encourage the heart by recognizing contributions (expect the best, personalize recognition, reflection and action), and by celebrating the values and victories (create a spirit of community, be personally involved, reflection and action). The practices are “cultivated” consciously and become parts of conscientiousness and integrity of leadership, promoted by perpetual reflection and action (see Section 2.4). Transformation is hard work; however, by “encouraging the heart,” it softens hardship. Because the mobilization of people is an aesthetical and ethical action, vision motivates, when it is based on the needs and feelings of others, and which is the motor to convince others to change their viewpoint on a problem, and thus their situation to move on. So much depends on the leaders’ ethical insight and power, on how they give “spirit” to the vision, and on how they enable the followers to bring the vision to life. Encouraging the heart is animating (Latin animare) or aspiring to the vision. Combining the proposed set of competencies above with the components of leadership as generally defined in Section 3.1 such as process, influence/power, group/environment, and goal achievement, we summarize further that leaders are persons with favorable traits and behavioral capacities meeting the challenges in the following ways:


Leadership

1. Pursuing purposes outside of themselves, thus by being transformational, visionary and creative through ... 2. Inspiring, motivating, steering, directing the different processes (cognitive, emotional, behavioral dynamics) with conscientiousness, integrity and commitment; furthermore, by effectively using influencing strategies.


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM


3. Leaders enable the organization’s members to develop interrelated connections (interdependence) by recognizing the benefits of cooperation and teamwork. 4. In order to challenge the process of improvement and change, and thus finally to make the vision and mission achievable as a collective contribution for cultural transformation. 5. However, change is only convincing, unless there is the will of the heart. Transformational leaders are above all skillful discoursers and hands-on managers. They have the ability to open the mind for change through the heart. In reviewing culture and Schein’s belief (see Section 2.5) that the quality of leadership depends on the quality not only of how culture influences leadership, but also vice versa, that leadership has a structural and progressive impact on the quality of culture (the dimensions of ethics and core values). In this context the new emerging leadership competence, thus the trans-cultural leadership competence, can be synthesized from Chapters 2 and 3 as follows: Trans-cultural leadership is innovative and transformational, as leaders have: 1. The ability to explore and understand the basic assumptions of a system (group, community, organization, company, environment), and how these assumptions give existence to the structure and processes of the system observed. This ability gives rise to high development of selfawareness and insight; and their emotional resilience gives them the courage to search for new solutions and change. 2. Having understanding and being understanding of people within the system and why they behave as they do, they develop interpersonal sensitivity to discover the needs and feelings of others, not just through rational and cognitive accesses, but by listening to the hearts. 3. Observing the interdependence and interaction between the systems, the many variations, and how these affect each other on an analytical level, leaders increase intuitiveness in order to find in interaction with others new perspectives and methods that they may not have thought of. 4. Anchored in their self-confidence and emotional resilience, they influence the process of meaning and sense making, thus the discourse of change. Transformation is perceived as a natural necessity. 5. However, transformation is above all a discourse process. Having gone through painful “unlearning“ processes to become transformational


66


10/5/2010 10:12:56 AM

67

themselves (see Sections 2.4 and 2.5, above), leaders use their own experiences as a reference to intensify their interpersonal sensitivity in order to support others in the process of going beyond their pain and potential. With willingness for continual improvement and by being role models, they inspire others to become leaders and empower others to develop, improve, and enhance learning and improvement, and thus finally to overcome the cultural frames and patterns restraining development. 6. Acquiring the ability of sensitive communication leaders create the feelings of shared vision, and of a meaningful future. Although they might give the orientation for the vision, change is not perceived as a personal interest; based on collective commitment change is a collective involvement. Last but not least, having these abilities also comprises the managerial abilities of planning, running, and setting the framework of problem and conflict-solving. In this way, the vision becomes action and does not remain as wishful lip service. Leaders are walking the talk.

Reflection of conclusion on leadership qualities and competences Discuss the following questions and try to reach a consensus in a group, and reflect on your results with a partner or a coach: ●

●

●

What does authenticity implicate, and how relevant is it for credibility and accountability of leadership? What ethics attract most followers? And how are they related to emotions? On what ethics and thus emotions should leadership be based to form and sustain relationships? How should leaders integrate diversity in times of multi-optional orientation and disorientation?

Further reading ●

●

Bennis, W. (1984). “The four competencies of leadership,” in Training and Development, Vol. 38, No. 8, 14–19. Connerley, Mary L. & Paul B. Pedersen (2005). Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment. Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. London, Sage.


Leadership


10/5/2010 10:12:57 AM

4

4.1

Organizational culture

The concept of organizational culture can be traced back to the human relations theories in the 1930s, originated from anthropological and sociological research on culture related to societies and groups’ patterned behaviors (Schreyögg, 2008; Keyton, 2005; Bodley, 1994). An organization does not just have a culture, it represents a culture emerging from the social construction of meaning and identity. According to Bodley (1994), culture is learned in mental processes, while people mutually and collectively regulate their organizational culture. Organization has a common history expressed in social heritage, shared in values, ideals, and rules and passed on to new members, the future generations. Being integrated in the organizational culture the members learn how to solve problems of adapting to the environment and of living together. Culture is a series of performances created by decision-making individuals and enhanced by structural changes. Culture emerges from what has been successful for the organization in the balance of internal integration and external adaptation, as seen in Schein (2004). By doing so, people share patterned behaviors, thoughts and understanding of how needs are negotiated to give meaning to their lives in their organizational community. They develop common language, symbols, metaphors, stories, or “common memory” that enable them to set up the basics of consensus of how to interpret and define the world. This approach is developed by symbolic interactionalist scholars explaining the nature of organizational reality. Although Schein did not refer his concept to symbolic interactionalism explicitly, he emphasized that our understanding mediated through visible artifacts and espoused values is a reflection of our taken-for-granted sense of reality. The shared patterns


Organizational Change and Development

68


10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM

69

arise out of the need of the organization to survive. Organizations are seen as “places of relative freedom of choice” in which members learn to find common achievement in the processes of and cooperation by meaning-making. The commitment to collective safety assures them accordingly their personal survival due to their “choice” of sharing the sense of reality provided by the organization and community. The symbolic interactionalist theories’ interest lies particularly on environmental conditions that have an impact on individual and collective attitudes, perceptions, and involvement in the process of the construction the organizational structure and culture within a temporal and local context. In the same direction as Bodley (1994) and Schein (2004), Keyton defined organizational culture as follows: “Thus, an organization is a dynamic system of organizational members (...) who communicate within and across organizational structures in a purposeful and ordered way to achieve a superordinate goal (...) An organization can change its physical location and replace its members without breaking down because it is essentially a patterned set of discourses that at some point in time were created by the members and codified into norms and practices that are later inherited, accepted, and adapted by newcomers” (2005:10). The internal integration depends on the quality of external adaptation and the quality of relationships with the environment. Organizations have to interact and negotiate with their environment which puts demands and constraints on the organization in many ways. The systemic approach represented by Parsons (2000) and Luhmann (1984) brings in additional arguments that an organization as a system on the one hand needs boundaries in order to exist, and on the other hand is at the same time selectively open to keep the equilibrium to balance between integrating and dividing forces. The equilibrium is necessary to establish stability of the organization and to promote the feelings of safety to the organizational members. Within a system different subsystems contribute to the intensity and quality of the dynamics that either stabilize or destabilize the organization, as each subsystem has different effects on other parts of the organizational system which make up the whole. From the point of view of systemic approach leaders have to know how different systems within an organization function and control processes of adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and the maintenance of the equilibrium, thus of stability (Parsons, 2000). To understand the makeup of an organization, very often structure and culture are distinguished from each other, although they are interrelated. Organizational structure is the conduits, the lines of authority,




10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM


the system set into place through which individuals can come together collectively in order to fulfill the expectations of the organizational culture. Organizational culture has a strong impact on the organization structure and processes (Keyton, 2005; Morgan, 1998). Structure and processes reflect and are reflected by culture. For example the roles, functions, and responsibilities towards tasks and people are defined by the values and ethical orientations of the organizational culture. Within any given organization, there are numerous sets of sub-units such as divisions, departments, groups, or teams. Having their own perspectives, and sets of values, they form subcultures. In spite of the individuals’ different backgrounds and affiliations to these different levels and units in the organization, they all will refer their membership to the reference organization’s culture as the dominant culture. The dominant or reference culture is deeply rooted in the ways of thinking of making meaning and working together to achieve that shared definition of situation and reality. On the other hand, differences between subcultures – in the sense of power struggles – might fragment a system or an organization, when they are overemphasized and breed alienation from the main system. Power fights nourish power asymmetries, fear, and distrust. Cultural diversity is then a source of misunderstanding and mistrust. When feelings of threat, abuse, resentment and affront towards others prevail, organizational change could end up in disintegration, decomposition, and finally in collapse of the system. Hence, an organization that is able to integrate the pluralistic perspectives as the challenge of improvement’s organizational integrity supports members to find sense of their own actions and behaviors with respect to diversity, change, innovation, relationship formation, and corporate responsibility as part of organizational culture. The deep-rootedness, which was described by Keyton as “inherited practices,” and by Schein as “basic assumptions,” means: a) the high degree of consistency of beliefs, values, assumptions, and practice across organizational members; and b) the pervasiveness (number) of consistent beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices within the organization. Volunteer and social organizations may use more relationships and attachment strategies based on a collectively solid coherent set of beliefs and values than business organizations, in which employees are more defined by their tasks and measurable individual efficiencies (Robbins, 2003). Some scholars and organizational experts correlate strong culture with high identification with core values, which support shared vision. The social networks are strong and therefore have positive effects on performance. Others argue against this generalization and believe that a


70


10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM

71

strong culture is not a guarantee for successful achievement, especially when strong cultures tend to maintain a rigid structure and control internal integration. They might produce more barriers to adaptation and change and fail sooner or later (McAuley et al., 2007; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Deal and Kennedy, 1982). A strong culture demands high identification with the organizational mission and might not be applicable for many organizations. People identifying strongly with the present-based-past culture do not feel the need for forward-looking development and change of culture. Resistance and reluctance might cause the failure of organizational change (see Section 3.4; Schein, 2004; McEwan, 2001). The identity of a company becomes an identity of those who work there, as people end up affecting the culture as much as the culture is affecting them. The exterior aspects of behavior and orientation are interlinked with taken-for-granted values and the interior emotions (see Sections 2.4, 2.5, 3.4). This knowledge is important, as the key to success of organizational change and development is to identify the relationships between the people and the organization, thus the quality of attachment with the culture. Leaders develop synergies between the different orientations resulting from the past and the present and relate them to future viability and survival. They create meaning for their own actions and the actions of others based on fundamental goals, values, and visions, while preventing different expectations from conflicting with one another. In many cases, the various orientations can be highly interrelated and mutually reinforcing. For example, when a coherent shared sense-making is established for change, people can understand not only rationally, but can also agree emotionally with the need for change. Then, there is an emotionally binding ownership of shared values, which thus directs the ways of thinking and behaving of the organization’s members who finally join the process “heartfully” (see Section 3.5). They feel involved in the planning and implementation of the transformation (Driskill and Brenton, 2005; Schein, 2004; Keyton, 2005; Kouzes and Posner, 1998).




●

●

How does culture manifest in an organization? Try to use symbolic interactionalism or constructivism theories. What could it mean for members of an organization to have a relative freedom of choice of sharing safety and reality? What are the different approaches of analyzing organizational culture? Explain them and how they complement one other.


10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM

72


●

●

●

What metaphor would you use to describe your organization? What should the metaphor tell you about organizational values? Discuss your observation with your colleagues and find out whether there is a common perception or disagreement, based on what understanding and interpretation. What are the key objects of success stories of an organization in reference to symbolic representatives, roles, power, and communication elements? How are the stories told and passed on from member to member or from generation to generation? Take your organization as source of your observation, reflection, and analysis. Why is it important that leaders are aware of organizational culture? And why should they try to find out different perceptions of organizational culture due to different positions in a hierarchy and in divisions?


●

●

Analyze several company websites while identifying and evaluating elements such as location, history, stories, news, presentation, structure, symbols, guidelines, selection of people, and so on. Discuss the power issue between dominant or reference culture and subcultures in an organization, and draw assumptions about what would happen when subcultures become more powerful than the reference culture, and what level of structure would change. Derive assumptions about what conditions should be created that different subcultures could be integrated into the whole system and share their knowledge willingly with the reference culture. Develop your tool of analysis to approach organizational culture by setting up main steps of planning. For example, find out data collection methods and evaluate them based on the feasibility and access to the data collection provided formally and informally by the organization you are observing. While conducting your research sharpen your awareness of major cultural elements and reflect critically your interpretation of them. Develop an evaluation concept of your reflection with the assistance of feedback of those not related to the organization observed. However, draw conclusions from your analysis method for the applicability of improvement, development, and change with the help of the feedback of the organization.


●

● ●

●



Driskill, Gerald W. & Angela L. Brenton (2005). Organizational Culture in Action. A Cultural Analysis Workbook. London, Sage. Keyton, Joann (2005). Communication and Organizational Culture. A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. London, Sage. Morgan, Gareth (1998). Images of Organization. London, Sage. Tajfel, Henri (ed.) (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups. London, Academic Press. Organizational culture and management: www.12manage.com


10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM


Organizational change and development

Organizational change has become the focus of many research and conception practices in search of ways and guidance for managers to improve their organization’s effectiveness. Any organization that needs to work to change will be facing a worthwhile investment in time, human resources, finance, and work. The less people see the need for change, the more effort and cost put into change management will be required. Organizational change can occur invisibly, unconsciously, motionlessly, and gradually over long periods of time. The transformation can take place smoothly and slowly on the level of basic assumptions, or the organizational structure can subdue visible change consciously and dynamically; the basic assumptions still remain the same. When an organization has to change, the present organizational culture is considered as a sort of failure; but this must not always be the case and depends on the perception and of the deepness of change. Anderson and Ackermann Anderson (2001) introduced three types of organizational change, which I adapt as follows: 1. Developmental change: The motivation of developmental change is improvement of performance, of becoming better in a certain area. It is not a profound change, and therefore the risks associated with it are low. When leaders communicate in a comprehensible way about why improvement is crucial and provide at the same time the necessary resources such as information and training, people can follow the reasons and the necessity of their involvement, and they feel motivated to support change. Change occurs through training, communication, intervention, interpersonal relations, supervisory skills, improvement of management, teambuilding, problem-solving, conflict resolutions, role negotiation, and so on, but also through increasing production, sales, job enrichment, and expanding existing market outreach. 2. Transitional change: This is more than merely improving what is; it focuses on the replacement of what has existed with something different or new. According to Anderson and Ackermann Anderson: “if leaders experience difficult human and cultural impacts in transitional change, it is usually the result of one of the following human dynamics: – People possessing inadequate skills for functioning in the new state; – People being “left in the dark” and feeling uncertain about what is coming next;


4.2

73


10/5/2010 10:13:07 AM


– People’s lack of understanding of the case for change or the benefits of the new state; – People’s reluctance to stop doing what they have always done in the past; – Homeostasis or inertia – people’s natural resistance to learning new skills or behaviors; – People’s emotional pain or grief at the loss of the past; – Poor planning and implementation of the change, which creates confusion and resentment; – Unclear expectations about what will be required to succeed in the new state; – Fear about not being successful or capable in the new state; and/or – Inadequate support to succeed in the new stated.” (2001:37–38) Consequently, the implementation of transitional change requires more than clear communication. Leaders have to define specific start and end dates. They have to make clear what are the required outcomes, involve the employees in designing and implementing the transition plan and provide enough support to ensure the integration in the new state, so as to anticipate the increasing uncertainty and anxiety towards change. Anderson and Ackermann Anderson (2001) suggested that before certain structures and processes have to be redesigned and replaced, the “impact analysis” has to be introduced first: “An impact analysis assesses both organizational and human impacts and provides essential information for building a god change plan and reducing human trauma. The impact analysis reveals: (1) what aspects of the old state serve the new state and can be carried forward; (2) what aspects will need to be dismantled or dropped; and (3) what will need to be created from scratch to fit the needs of the new state.” (2001:38) This approach would serve leaders in their conceptualization of a coherent plan of action and help them in their direction of change. 3. Transformational change: This is a profound breakthrough change in people’s worldviews. It is a fundamental change which “requires a shift of culture, behavior, and mindset to implement successfully and sustain over time” (Anderson and Ackermann Anderson, 2001:39). Change is perceived as extremely painful, as people face uncertainty at the very beginning of change, because the destination remains unknown. “The journey of transformation is anything but a straight line. The process requires significant turns in the road because of the simple fact that it is full of uncertainty. This is for three reasons. First, because the future state is being discovered while the organization is going forward, the


74


10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM

75

transformation process is literally the pursuit of an emerging target. As the target shifts, so must the process required to get there. Second, proceeding without a definitive destination requires heading into the unknown, which makes many people uncomfortable. When people react strongly to the unknown, their commitment and their performance level also become uncertain. Third, there is no way of knowing in advance the pace or actual scope of work required.” (ibid.:43) The transformational process is not only painful for the organization and the people involved, but also leaders will feel their vulnerability in the search of the appropriate solution for a new direction. They have to learn to accept that they cannot control the course or the outcome fully, although they are responsible for leading the transformation. Leaders “must, in fact, have a significant degree of faith, trust and commitment to proceed despite their concerns” (ibid.:47). When people learn to accept change as an opportunity for continuous learning and selfdevelopment, or in other words, when organizational transformation includes personal transformation, and leaders are part of this transformation, change will be experienced like a “rebirth” in “a life cycle of rebirths”. Van de Ven and Poole (cited by Weick and Quinn) made further differentiations within theories of change. They presented four theories of change referring to event sequences in a change process: (a) “Life cycle theories refer to the event sequence of start-up, grow, harvest, terminate, and start-up again. They have a generative mechanism of an imminent program or regulation. (b) Teleological theories refer to the event sequence of envision/set goals, implement goals, dissatisfaction, search/interact, and envision/set goals. They have a generative mechanism of purposeful enactment and social construction associated with meaning giving and sense giving. (c) Dialectical theories refer to the event sequence of thesis/antithesis, conflict, synthesis, and thesis/antithesis. They have a generative mechanism of pluralism, confrontation, irritation, disputation, and conflict. (d) Evolutionary theories refer to the event sequence of variation, selection, retention, and variation. It has a generative mechanism of competitive selection and resource scarcity.” (Weick and Quinn, 1999:364)




10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM

76


Weick and Quinn associated these four motors along two dimensions:

They emphasized the importance of the study of these four motors in reference to the suggested dimensions. Questions such as the following help leaders to get a deeper understanding and observation of the nature of change, and accordingly to develop their strategies and interventions: ●

●

When does change emerge? When is it driven from the forces within and when from outside of the observed organization? When are which interventions necessary to be applied while analyzing the proceeding interplay of the motors among them and of how to balance them?

Change does not always evolve in a linear and predictable way with measurable stages as change management often suggests, especially not in transformational change. The activities undergo rhythm and tempo. Much depends on the type of organizational change and the related motors. The dynamics of change move between stabilization and destabilization, regulation and disorientation, integration and disintegration, unifying and contrasting. Consequently, leaders leading change have the choice either to be subject of the regulation of their environment and become determined by cycle and evolution or to have an active and interactive role in change interventions, and become an active part in dialectical and teleological emerging processes, and have influence on the structure and the direction of change, no matter whether change is cyclical or evolutionary. In comparison to Anderson and Ackermann Anderson’s (2001) three types of change, Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguished just two of them: the episodic change and the continuous change. They defined their types along Dunphy’s five properties: 1) metaphor of organization; 2) analytic framework; 3) ideal organization; 4) intervention theory; 5) role of change agent (see table 4.1). In their model they synthesized


(a) The unit of change, which focuses on the development of a single organizational entity (life cycle, teleology) or on the interactive exchange between two and/or more entities (dialectic, evolution) (b) The mode of change. The change events are produced by deterministic laws (life cycle, evolution), or the change events are generated and constructed by interactions (dialectic, teleology).


10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM

77

several approaches to suggest the relevance and the role of leader. It is difficult to say which type of change requires a more balanced confrontation with disequilibrium and conflicts. Both types seem to be challenging; leaders are surely not passive or the subject of change. They know how to invite their people to join change, whether they are a prime mover or sense-maker. In both cases they need managerial skills: clear communication and coordination, adaptive planning and organization, sophisticated governance and control. Within a complex organization or system, both episodic and continuous change can occur, for example in different cultural layers, or at different levels of structure and procedures, or in different segments or divisions (subsystems). Why an organization changes, at whatever levels, there are many forces, visible and invisible, internal and external, which drive for change. Thus, an organization can be either reactive or proactive. So too are leaders. Change can refer to just technological or structural and procedural modification and can induce innovation. Not all change is innovation (Gardner and Dunham, 2002). However, it always embraces human components and therefore requires special care, or, as we have discussed so far, leadership competencies (see Section 3.5). Reactions to change can range from positive and supportive to negative and resistant. It is believed that people with an internal locus of control are more open to change, whereas people with an external locus of control feel insecure and reluctant when change is introduced (Robbins, 2003). Locus of control is the way in which people believe and perceive whether they are masters of their life and survival. People with an internal locus of control believe they are not completely subject to external (such as political, economical, social, technological, and ecological) forces, but they have choice and thus control the direction and quality of their lives. People with an external locus of control feel at the mercy of external influences, and thus they easily believe they are victims of the environment. The perception of locus of control should not be reduced to psychological roots. What people believe is not just a question of personal feeling and development, but a question of how people are raised and educated in a belief system, and what experiences of enforcing safety they have made in their lifetime. In reference to culture and leadership as social construction, we come to the understanding that much depends on (a) the cultural environment producing leaders, and (b) the leader’s basic assumptions and competencies of how to involve and engage people with external or internal locus of control in the process of making sense of change. Leaders have to get an




10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM

78


Episodic change

Continuous change

Metaphor of organization

Organizations are inertial and change is infrequent, discontinuous, intentional

Organizations are emergent and self-organizing, and change is constant, evolving, cumulative

Analytic framework

Change is an occasional interruption or divergence from equilibrium It tends to be dramatic and it is driven externally It is seen as a failure of the organization to adapt its deep structure to a changing environment Perspective: macro, distant, global Emphasis: short-run adaptation Key concepts: inertia, deep structure of interrelated parts, triggering, replacement and substitution, discontinuity, revolution

Change is a pattern of endless modifications in work processes and social practice It is driven by organizational instability and alert reactions to daily contingencies Numerous small accommodations accumulate and amplify Perspective: micro, close, local Emphasis: long-run adaptability Key concepts: recurrent interactions, shifting task authority, response repertoires, emergent patterns, improvisation, translation, learning

Ideal organization

The ideal organization is capable of continuous adaptation

The ideal organization is capable of continuous adaptation

Intervention theory

The necessary change is created by intention Change is Lewinian: inertial, linear, progressive, goal seeking, motivated by disequilibrium, and requires outsider intervention 1. Unfreeze: disconfirmation of expectations, learning anxiety, provision of psychological safety 2. Transition: cognitive restructuring, semantic

The change is a redirection of what is already under way Change is Confucian: cyclical, processional, without an end state, equilibrium seeking, eternal 1. Freeze: make sequences visible and show patterns through maps, schemas, and stories 2. Rebalance: reinterpret, relabel, resequence the patterns to reduce blocks. Use logic of attraction


Table 4.1 Weick and Quinn’s Comparison of Episodic and Continuous Change

Continued


10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM


79

Role of change agent

Episodic change

Continuous change

redefinition, conceptual enlargement, new standards of judgment 3. Refreeze: create supportive social norms, make change congruent with personality

3. Unfreeze: resume improvisation, translation, and learning in ways that are more mindful

Role: prime mover who creates change Process: focuses on inertia and seeks points of central leverage Changes meaning systems: speaks differently, communicates alternative schema, reinterprets revolutionary triggers, influences punctuation, builds coordination and commitment

Role: sense-maker who redirects change Process: recognizes, makes salient, and reframes current patterns, shows how intentional change can be made at the margins Alters meaning by new language, enriched dialogue, and new identity Unblocks improvisation, translation, and learning

Source: Weick, K. E. & R. E. Quinn (1999). ‘Organizational change and development’, in Annual Revue Psychology, 50, 361–386 [online]. Available at http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/ classes/communities/readings/Weick&Quinn

understanding of their people and build trust first, before they start their journey to change. People with an external locus of control need supportive processes to reduce their fears of loss. Leaders represent the anchor in the shoreless ocean of change. Credibility and trust in leadership is highly necessary to lead these people through the challenges of uncertainty and anxiety. On the other hand, power could easily be misused to take advantage of people’s anxiety to mislead them for personal interest. Here, we raise a critical question to the symbolic representation of the leadership either personalized in leaders or institutionalized in organizations (see Imbusch, 1998). People with an internal locus of control might be more resilient and could be recruited for the motivation of others for improving change. Working with people with an internal locus of control does not necessarily mean there would not be any resistance. Weak leaders who have no clear concept of why change is required will have a hard power struggle with those who know where and why to go.


Table 4.1 Continued


10/5/2010 10:13:08 AM


In some cultural environments we might find more people with an internal locus of control than in others, as much depends on the cultural assumptions of how people perceive meanings in what they are doing and believing. Here again, managerial skills do not countervail against the power of anxiety and resistance (see Section 3.3). People need to agree with change, especially, when they perceive the value, understand the reasons, and trust in their initiators. There is also the assumption that people with a high identification with their old organizational culture might feel less open to new ideas and thus to new direction. Gardner and Dunham (2002) argued that the strength of an individual’s ownership for the target of change would influence their attitude toward change. Change always causes reactions, and the commitment to change varies according to the facts, whether change is self-initiated or imposed, evolutionary or revolutionary, additive or subtractive (Gardner and Dunham, 2002). Subtractive means replaced or restructured, such as in transitional and transformational change. The stronger the emotional ownership, the more positive the perception of and thus the support for change, which finally affects positive results and success, even if it is a revolutionary and subtractive transformation. When an organization reaches the status quo of stabilization, and experiences success with its evolution, it becomes over the years inert towards change. Then, the ability to change is perceived as a painful effort, which has to be developed and acquired newly again. However, change in general is a natural process; it is standing still which is unnatural. This presumes that it is impossible for an organization not to interact with the environment and contain itself from any influences. Continuous change is in fact unavoidable and required for longterm adaptability. Within continuous change, episodic transformation would bring along reflection and re-evaluation, innovation and qualitative growth. So, the question of organizational change does not refer to the ability to go with change, but to the ability of how to perceive and interact with change for a qualitatively sustainable “excellent way of life.” Therefore, successful change does not depend merely on leadership quality alone, but strongly on the individual and collective learning ability of the organization, whether they perceive change as the opportunity to go beyond their hitherto potential. Although leaders can gain strong influence on cultural change, it is the participants as a whole who create the difference and the quality of change. Consequently, successful change is when people can use their experiences to transform crises into a turning point and ensure the internal and external continuation of improvement by changing the direction cooperatively and cohesively. The perception goes beyond the adaptive


80


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

81

behavior. Organizations should search constant interaction to broaden and design the action fields not just in the sense of reaction of environmental diversification, but it should find ways of going beyond reaction, perhaps in the sense of anticipation of heteronymous change. Innovation is doing things that one has never thought of being able to do before. For the anticipation towards environmental diversification, the organization is encouraged to use different internal and external resources for its endeavor of growth. Accordingly, diversity of cultures is the source of many solutions in the search process of new direction for a sustainable “excellent way of life” We summarize and deduce from the previous chapters on culture and leadership the following proposals for organizational change and development. Organizational change and development: Arise from shared behaviors of an organization’s members and interactive relationships, which have developed over time. Thus, cultural change requires time, until the organization is really transformed. Relationship orientation does not mean that the task orientation in giving clear direction during organizational change and development is not of eminent relevance. Relationship orientation means to involve and engage people in interactions of sense-making, including stakeholders and shareholders, customers, competitors, suppliers, creditors, government agencies, and their regulations because the emergence of change has an impact on the people within and outside the organization. Change transforms not only those in the workplace, but also relationships with the environment. They all, especially the members of the organization, have to be able to understand and identify with the vision of the reason of change to support it and not to increase disintegration or alienation due to resistance and detachment (see Section 4.1). When there is a feeling and an emotional ownership of being part of that vision, the collective process enhances the commitment to implement vision into actions – no matter whether change is episodic or continuous, or developmental, transitional, or transformational.

●



Embrace external connectivity for sustainability. No organization is a closed-up system; it faces situational variables. Organizations have to interact and negotiate with the environment in which they work and live. The adaptation process should not be a passive one. Organizations define with the environment their power of existence by balancing between reduction of those external influences that inhibit organizational growth and of risks affecting the organization by coordinating,

●


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

82


sharing and delegating responsibility. The effectiveness of external connectivity shows in the organization’s ability to anticipate, manage, and respond to changes in their environment, and to circumstances resulting from external forces and/or stakeholders. Embrace diversity, not uniformity (see Sections 2.4 and 3.3). Diversity is enrichment and opens up more resources, possibilities, and perceptions at three levels: individual, interpersonal, and organizational. Different perspectives are considered as a positive contribution in the search for a best solution for all, so change is an aspect of broadening that enrichment based on a collective consensus. Thus, an organization with multicultural perspectives is due to its complexity a challenge, but the multiple perspectives open many more opportunities for solutions that one has never thought before. Leaders can get from their people what they can offer. Leadership in this context means to provide an environment that allows the people to reach their full potential for a collective well-being. Are perceived as future-oriented and not as predominantly present/pastoriented processes, although the past might provide the lessons learned. In order not to fall back in the same “lessons learnt”, and as change becomes a short-term fact or gets an alibi function, the transformation should be a forward-looking process in search of a turning point, no matter how much importance the past might have. Behavioral change induces cultural transformation and reinforces not just the perception but also the experience that something has to change, and finally has changed, whereas the change of perception must not necessarily drive to transformation. Consequently, the sustainability of change relies on the acknowledging insight of dysfunctional basic assumptions and on the ability to disengage from the frames which have so far precluded it from growing. ●

Should cope with, influence, and manage the environment, and not just adapt, as we have mentioned above. An organization that just adapts to environmental requirements gives up leadership and power. It will be determined by external powers. Organizational development implies taking leadership into the environment, in which leadership contributes meaningful change to the environment. Developing effective power as fundamental strategies to influence the dynamics of development is important to “cooperate” with today’s challenges of unpredictable and rapid change. Effective power in this context means the ability to reduce resistance and resentment by giving satisfaction and sense of activities in the form of where the organization is heading with the environment (compare Randall, 2004).

●


●


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM


83

Should not be not just reactive, as stated above, but rather more proactive. Participation in the overall sense-making process is active leadership and acceptance of responsibility in the creation of wellbeing. Leaders cannot simply avoid tensions and ignore conflicts. As proactive leaders in an organization’s development and change, they have to attempt to influence the factors triggering irritations and fragmentations by reframing them in terms of opportunities of growing beyond one’s potential to solve them rather than perceiving them as threats or crises.

Should be pragmatic, not purely idealistic. Vision, which is set to have an alibi function, causes frustration and disillusion in the long run. Therefore, several steps of measurable goals make the full achievement more realistic. Many experiences of success prevent frustration, justify the belief of the necessity of change, minimize the feelings of failure, and finally support validation of transformational mission. ●

● Promote internal integration for stabilization. A climate of trust, confidence, and shared positive experiences enhances cohesion and collaboration. Continuous creation and validation of meanings convey feelings of security. Vision must become a practice, when leaders are modelling the way of “walking the talk.” Communicating clearly for every undertaking is not sufficient; leaders must attempt to multiply leadership within their organization and environment and appoint the “right” people to the “right” position for the “right” task as well as to work with the “right” people with the “right” key position for the “right” goal to countervail opponents.

Organizational development and change demand time and trust. In this situation, it is often best recommended to have some professional outsiders (e.g. consultants) to support the processes of internal and external integration. Transformational change requires self- awareness and conscientiousness, hence the ability of active reflection and action (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5). The organization is an organic system; it is dynamic in the search of survival strategies (Schein, 2004; Anderson and Ackermann Anderson, 2001). Within this context an organization can decide whether they want to give up leadership, and become heteronymous and subject to external driving forces. Or they are active sense-givers and take decisions about their “fate” or their survival into their hands. Vision is not an abstract entity and something nice to have, but must be put into practice when leaders are part of it.


●


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

84


Summary questions

● ●

What differences do you see between Anderson and Ackermann Anderson’s (2001) and Weick and Quinn’s (1999) types of change? Explain the concept of internal and external locus of control. Why is ownership of change important for a successful result of management of change?


●

●

Why should one face with overcoming fear in times of change abd crisis when stability and security are much more required? Would you agree that providing trust and time would help to overcome resistance against change? Find pro and contra arguments and develop conditions reducing resistance. What are the essential qualities of leaders for organizational development and change?


●

●

Find out the relevance of relationship orientation for the stabilization of an organization and for leadership quality, based on theories of binding, emotional attachment, and emotional intelligence. Discuss how an organization can sustain internal integration in the process of threatening disruption due to diversity and pluralism of values and perspectives, and still go on with change. Compare several companies’ behaviors towards change. Based on what observation criteria would you say they are proactive or reactive to environmental change? Develop your model of observation criteria.


●

●

●

4.3

Gardner, Pierre J. L. & R. B. Dunham (2002). Management and Organizational Behavior: An Integrated Perspective. Cincinnati, South-Western College. Randall, Julian (2004). Managing Change/Changing Managers. New York, Routledge. Nadler, D., Shaw, R.B., Walton, A.E. (1995). Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Organizational culture and management: www.12manage.com


●

The learning organization

Peter Senge popularized the notion of the “learning organization” in 1990 with his book The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. He defined a learning organization as a space


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

85

and place “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 2006:3). An organization is on the lifelong learning path, as all members within an organization learn with one another. In Senge’s words, the ability to manage change is the ability of learning. Moreover, he questioned whether organizations have a learning ability or learning disability. He said that “we learn best from experience but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions” (2006:23). In this context, he introduced the five disciplines of learning (Senge, 2006), which must be practiced collectively, and thus become personal or individual. The awareness and development of the five disciplines are important for the organization’s development. I adapt Senge’s disciplines to our context of transformational change as follows: 1. Systems thinking: The learner is aware of the systemic structure (see Section 4.1), which produces patterns of behavior. Structural explanations are generative, whereas behaviors are responsive. The results of behaviors should not be only events or reactive, but merely proactive. As mentioned above, change events are generated and constructed (see Section 4.2). In this sense, learning ability means to discover structural causes of behavior, or more explicitly: The discipline of systems thinking is the ability to perceive and understand the interrelationships between different systems and processes, and not linear cause–effect chains or fragmented phenomena. Systemic thinking is important to handle interdependencies and the resulting different effects on different systems (see Section 2.1). Systems thinking helps us to analyze the correlation between the action and consequences occurring in different time spans and circumstances. This knowledge supports the reflection of actions that have to be taken for change (see Section 5.4).



2. Personal mastery: Organizations learn through individuals who learn collectively, thus through mutual exchanges. But individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning! Personal mastering means not just acquiring more information, but expanding the ability to produce the results (goal achievement) we deeply want in life (vision) (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4). Mastering is proficiency of integrating reason and intuition. Senge believed that the power of the


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM


subconscious must be trained, as underneath we all have the vision of a life in “harmony”. The intrinsic feelings of “harmony”, such as safety, self-esteem, well-being, happiness, satisfaction, self-fulfillment, love, and so on, provide the motivation and drive for change, thus promoting optimization and improvement. However, our reality is filled with stress and problems, which induces uncertainty, and consequently resistance and alienation from our profound needs and longing. This creates in us feelings of powerlessness. Fears and anxiety restrain us from growing, and thus from transformational process. Personal mastery requires reflective introspection from all those who are engaged in change and development. Leaders managing change have persistent enthusiasm of increasing self-mastery while improving the system in which they live and have influences by their being and doing (see Sections 3.4 and 3.5). 3. Mental models: Mental models are powerful in the sense that they shape our perception, interpretation, and finally behavioral patterns, how we use, and make sense of the information to determine our strategies and the world in which we are (compare Schein’s (2004) basic assumptions). Successful organizations have to learn to adapt their mental models to new situations. First, an organization has to become conscious of their non-debatable mental models in order to make the distinction between the functional and dysfunctional aspects of their own system. The self-insight of weaknesses is perceived as most difficult, as, so far, weaknesses have been the implicitness of what is true. The focus on anxiety concerning loss of the past, hitherto validated values, can make organizational change fail, the old mental model and system remain sacrosanct, in Schein’s terms “taken-for-granted” (see Section 2.3). 4. Building shared vision: Communicating vision does not activate learning ability, unless shared vision puts a company and organization’s vision into words and actions. Additionally, vision requires people’s firm commitment. “The vision needs to be challenging, meaningful, and worthy of pursuit, but it also needs to be credible. People must believe that it is possible to succeed in the pursuit of vision” (Nadler and Tushman, 1994:282). Vision is not just a matter of “l’art pour l’art”. Senge emphasized that vision should have the purpose to develop over time, and be supported by the collective. In other words, people can only identify with the vision, when they can associate their intrinsic feelings of excitement with the vision shared in collective elaboration to accomplish the common goal. Nadler and


86


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

87

Tushman (1994) emphasized the interrelated triangle of envisioning, energizing, and enabling. There is the fundamental collective confidence and the belief that people can meet the challenge to make the shared vision come true. When vision is kept as an unfulfilled hope for a long undefined time, and the pain of survival is increasing, this hope sinks to disillusion and mistrust against the system creating it. Alienation towards the organization and its top management would be the end. Many organizations develop vision in the past and forget to keep it alive by having it continuously nurtured and transformed (see Section 6.8). A learning organization is where leaders have the ability to create with the system meaningful vision, and by doing so they initiate through a range of different actions the collective motivation for cooperation and continuous learning. In this way they assist their people to perform effectively in order to achieve the compelling challenge of transformation. 5. Team learning: The discipline of team learning starts with dialogue. Within an organization there are different people with different backgrounds, thus different views based on different experiences and perspectives. Dialogue is an ability which requires the ability of active listening and high self-reflection (see Section 5.4). “Thus it is a characteristic of every true conversation that each opens himself to the other person, truly accepts his point of view as worthy of consideration and gets inside the other to such an extent that he understands not a particular individual, but what he says. The thing that has to be grasped is the objective rightness or otherwise of his opinion, so that they can agree with each other on a subject” (Gadamer, 1979:347). In dialogue people are challenged to alter their mental model or to step out of their taken-for-granted patterns, as problems cannot be solved using the same kind of thinking they have used when they created them. While “thinking together” in dialogue (Senge, 2006), people cultivate “double-loop learning.” “Double-loop learning” requires the ability of questioning and reflecting basic assumptions underlying ideas, values, belief systems, or policies, and the confrontation with hypotheses disconfirming the hitherto mental patterns (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Team learning is the precondition for personal mastering and the development of a “learning society” (Senge, 2006). Organizational and cultural transformation implies constant dialogues, interactive communication and relationships-oriented networking. The meaningmaking process evolves in the consciousness of people’s minds and actions and enhances collective empowerment due to envisioning,




10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM

88


energizing, and enabling in a group’s dialogue, as above. New solutions for viability and survival cannot be found in the same consciousness that conceived them.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often used in human resource management to motivate employees. The theory conveys that all humans independent of their social and cultural background follow the same needs. The psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) explained with his theory, the “hierarchy of needs”, why people behave in certain ways, and suggested a pyramid model. He believed that once the basic needs are satisfied, the next level of needs gets attention. Thus, needs run from the more basic to the more complex: from physiological needs to self-actualization or self-transcendence needs. These needs are as follows: Physiological needs: the needs for food, clothing, and shelter and the other basic functions in life including sex, sleep, and the need to do simple things like go to the toilet. Although these needs are often not perceived as they are taken for granted, when deprived of them, utmost anxiety is triggered. Safety needs: the needs for feeling safe and secure in their home and work environment. Safety needs refer to security, protection, and stability on the physical (health) and interpersonal levels (job, family, community, and so on). Social needs: the needs for belongingness, attachment, affection, friendship, and love. Being a member of a family, a group, or a community ensures the above-mentioned needs are met. Esteem needs: the need to be respected and and recognized increases self-esteem and integrity, and provides self-confidence as well as nourishing emotional resilience and of having skills and talents recognized by others. Self-actualization: the need to be accomplished and fulfilled and the feelings of growth and use of one’s abilities to the fullest and most creative potential. This concept offers a variety of interpretation as it depends on individual situation and personal view. Maslow later differentiated the fifth level of need and related it to cognitive dimensions such as knowledge, understanding, and exploration. The sixth level is then called aesthetic self-actualization, which pursues symmetry, order, and beauty. The seventh level focuses on self-fulfillment, and of realization of one’s potential. And finally, the eighth level is called transcendence. To help others find self-fulfillment and realize their own potential is the most accomplished self-actualization. Understanding human needs is recognized as important in motivating people in activities. Organizational change must consider the interdependency of needs and motivational effects, and that different employees might have different needs. Therefore, leadership for transformation requires good knowledge of their followers’ needs and a set of different and systemic


Exhibit 4.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the Response of Leadership Development


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM


89

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Survival: Leaders are crisis director or manager. Relationship: Leaders are relationship managers and communicators. Self-esteem: Leaders are managers and organizers. Transformation: Leaders are facilitators and influencers. Internal cohesion: Leaders are integrators and inspirers. Making a difference: Leaders are mentors and partners. Service: Leaders have wisdom and are visionary.

Barrett explained: The principal focus of the lower levels of leadership consciousness is on creating a financially stable organization with a strong customer base that has efficient systems and processes. The principal focus of the transformation level of leadership consciousness is to promote a climate of continuous learning and employee empowerment so that the organization can be responsive and adaptable to changes in its internal and external environment. The principal focus of upper levels of leadership consciousness is to create a vision, mission and a set of values for the organization that builds internal and external connectivity through strategic alliances and makes a contribution society. Possible areas for projects of discovery and discussion Design a concept of how you want to develop an understanding of the needs of your environment. Your concept is based around Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Your concept could include questionnaires, different types of workshops, and events, but also your observation and interactive criteria. It is important that you define first what your goal of your survey or observation is and how and what you want to use your results for. Do you want to get to know your team’s needs for a warming-up phase, or do you want to know their needs to invite them for transformation? While evaluating your results, you have to be aware of how you are going to interpret your results, with whom, and especially how to apply them.


motivation strategies to motivate their community for change. Maslow’s model, although sometimes criticized, is often used and further developed by scholars and consultants, especially in the promotion of change management. For example, Barrett (2006) shows in his theoretical example cultural transformation based on organizational involvement driven by values and needs. For his thesis, he develops the model of by values-based leadership embracing seven levels of leadership consciousness:


● ●

Barrett, Richard (2006). Building a Values-Driven Organization: A Whole System Approach to Cultural Transformation. Burlington, ButterworthHeinemann. Values-based leadership: www.valuescentre.com/leaders/sllconsciousness.htm Tests and assessment tools: www.integralstrategies.org


10/5/2010 10:13:09 AM


Schein’s (2004) concept of organizational culture does not differ much from Senge’s concept of learning organization. He referred in his model to Kurt Lewin’s change theory, which was developed in the 1940s to understand the group and decision-making dynamics in the search for solutions. Lewin (1947) introduced in his change model phases such as “unfreezing, changing and refreezing” (see exhibit 2.3), which have influenced many scholars, consultants, and trainers of organizational change and development, for example, Weick and Quinn (1999) (see table 4.1). Schein applied Lewin’s model for organizational culture in order to reveal the profound dynamics of organizational change. Successful change involves the ability to overcome the painful experience of unlearning the pattern of basic assumptions, or in Senge’s words mental models. But how? When the taken-for-granted patterns become conscious, the transformation still has not started yet. It emerges just as the willingness of “unlearning” and has to go on developing up to the process of “relearning” a new experience of “learning.” New patterns must have to be woven. The reorganized structure needs to get a new form and must have been acquired in an enduring process of tense internal integration and external adaption to new circumstances in order to become, finally, internalized and rooted in perception, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Based on Lewin’s “learning concept,” Deming used the term “continual improvement” and described the process of developing learning disciplines on a deep level, which a learning organization should achieve: “Continual improvement is an unending journey. A capable process, shared vision and aim, good leadership, and training are major factors in creating” (The Deming Library, online). For him, the modern organization is an increasingly complex system that should be conscious of old beliefs and re-examine them to see if they continue to be true, as optimization should be the object of all organizations wishing to survive in a competitive environment. Deming believed that the ability of continual improvement depends on how the organizational culture enhances everybody’s responsibility for the quality of optimization. In this context, leaders act as the “prophets of quality”. In order to know what to improve, one has to know what to do for the best. Consequently, it is not sufficient to collect know-how information. Leaders and their organizations need the acquisition of “profound knowledge” and the understanding of how systems work. Deming (1986) introduced the concept of the “System of Profound Knowledge“ (SPK). The SPK is summarized in 14 points for management and seven diseases with the aim of enhancement in economic prosperity and


90


10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM

91

social peace (www.deming.org). Many companies have integrated SPK in their change management concept. According to Deming, a system is a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system including not merely leadership and management, but also people, output, service, and more. Every system has an aim. Therefore, the aim of the system must be clear to everyone in the system. The aim must comprise plans for the future. The aim is a value judgment and creation. When leaders are aware of the purpose of the overall system, and have insight into how the processes can be improved to serve it better, they can give direction and focus. However, they have to be sensitive to the fact that continual improvement depends on how people learn. Leaders need the knowledge that different people learn in different ways and different ideas persuade different people differently. Having this awareness, leaders are able to foresee outcomes, while being sensitive to the causes emerging within or outside of the system. According to Deming (1986), leaders have to be able to make a distinction between the variation of common and specific causes in order to deal with the variability of the outcomes and to define the related beneficial products and the service differentiations. The SPK helps them to apply the right management tools for transformation and to anticipate the change for the worse. “Continual improvement” is, therefore, not something that an organization gains while adding something to the old way, but a “cultural transformation” or a way of “transformative learning.” It is “what you do instead of the old way” (The Deming Library, online). Deming associated “continual improvement” with the acquisition of competences, which are described by Scholtes (1998) in four steps. In the first stage people are not aware of their ignorance and do not want to become aware of it. They are bound to their blind spot and old model. This stage is called the stage of unconscious incompetence. As soon as they become aware of the existence of the deficits, they make a great step towards progress. In the stage of being conscious of incompetence, people perceive their deficiency but do not know what to do. They feel threatened – this stage is referred to by other scholars as the beginning of the stage of “unlearning” or “unfreezing” (Schein, 2004; Lewin, 1947). During this stage people can either accept or reject the acknowledgment of their incompetence. Whichever is the case, they always make a decision: either their denial keeps them in their old patterns, or their acceptance opens up the path of moving on. Feeling enough drive to change their inadequate situation and overcome the deficiency, they




10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM


strive for the next stage of gaining conscious competence. They develop new strategies that become parts of their new behavior. This stage requires an amount of time and perseverance, as the newly acquired competence enters “unconsciously” the unconscious part of the brain. The internalization is a long-run process, and the new pattern becomes, finally, taken-for-granted. This stage is called unconscious competence. Senge, Deming, and Schein were more interested in how to influence learning behavioral progress supporting transformative change, which relates to the inner layer of culture. Transformation is when an organization steps out of the old world. This is only possible when the old basic assumptions and old pattern are put into question or in dialogue. Basic assumptions function like the tacit structure or in terms of Argyris and Schön (1978) as “theories-in-use”, which embrace the following elements: ● ● ● ● ●

governing variables (or values) action strategies intended and unintended consequences for self intended and unintended consequences for others action strategy effectiveness.

An example is provided by Anderson (1997) to help illustrate this concept of “theories-in-use”: A person may have a governing variable of suppressing conflict, and one of being competent. In any given situation she will design action strategies to keep both these governing variables within acceptable limits. For instance, in a conflict situation she might avoid the discussion of the conflict situation and say as little as possible. This avoidance may (she hopes) suppress the conflict, yet allow her to appear competent because she at least hasn’t said anything wrong. This strategy will have various consequences both for her and the others involved. An intended consequence might be that the other parties will eventually give up the discussion, thereby successfully suppressing the conflict. As she has said little, she may feel she has not left herself open to being seen as incompetent. An unintended consequence might be that the she thinks the situation has been left unresolved and therefore likely to recur, and feels dissatisfied. The concept of “theories-in-use” shows how the mental model is interrelated to our actions, and finally to the consequences of our actions. Being influenced by Argyris and Lewin, Schein agreed that “to learn something new in this realm requires us to resurrect, re-examine, and possibly change some of the more stable portions of our cognitive


92


10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM

93

structure – a process that Argyris and others have called “double-loop learning,” or “frame breaking” (...) Such learning is intrinsically difficult because the re-examination of basic assumptions temporarily destabilizes our cognitive and interpersonal world, releasing large quantities of basic anxiety“ (Schein, 2004:31). He observed how resistant forces against change were harder to remove as a result of collective norms and values embedded in the organizational or community culture remaining in the stage of being unconscious of incompetence. This experience led him to the thesis of the “anxiety of unlearning.” To surmount the “anxiety of unlearning” he argued that the feelings of consequences of not caring about change and not being able to survive must be stressfully strong. The “survival anxiety” would lead to “survival guilt.” People have to believe that if they do not change they will fail to meet their needs and not be able to survive. I would say they must feel guilty for not being able to keep themselves and those important to them alive. In that sense, I call transformation as the conscious continual improvement preventing people from fading away or from dying while still alive. In this challenging situation leaders get key roles, when they are conscious of the fact that “all group and organizational theories distinguish two major sets of problems that all groups, no matter what their size, must deal with: 1. “survival, growth, and adaptation in their environment; and 2. internal integration that permits daily functioning and the ability to adapt and learn” (Schein, 2004:18). The change in the deep structure that affects basic assumptions or mental models is in comparison to other change the real “transformational change.” “Transformation is the radical shift from one state of being to another, so significant that it requires a shift of culture, behavior, and mindset to implement successfully and sustain over time” (Anderson and Ackermann Anderson, 2001:40). The frame breaking is the going beyond particular individual perspectives towards collective unifying multi-perspective, going beyond local view towards global, holistic, and systemic view, going beyond container paradigm toward progress-oriented paradigm (see Section 2.2). The shift is more than merely a mental paradigm shift. It is a change in knowledge, scientific perception of the world (Kuhn, 1996) and in behavioral and emotional new orientation. I would emphasize that organizations in transformational processes have to transcend high uncertainty and anxiety to overcome the old paradigm in order to open a new cycle




10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM


of evolution. Consequently, leaders have to become masters in coping with fears and anxieties. They have the courage and have gone through the four stages of being unconscious of competence, to being conscious of incompetence, moving on to being conscious of competence, and finally of being unconscious of competence. Furthermore, they develop a sensitivity of the variety of others’ unconscious incompetence and are skilled to lead them out to achieve the stage of unconscious competence. Elbert Green Hubbard, an American philosopher and reformer of radical thinking, described the greatness of consciousness so: “It is a fine thing to have ability, but the ability to discover in others is the true test.” The necessity of sustained collective commitment to “continual improvement” and keeping the cycle going supports leaders in their making of the new pattern rooted in the deep structure. They create a new paradigm. Leaders of transformation are more than just managerial change agents; they enjoy being lifelong learners. Therefore, they take risks, as they know some mistakes and uncertainty are inevitable, when they want to make sure that their organization practices “continual improvement.” Striving for sustainable performance of an “excellent way of life,” leaders are prepared to be in the uncomfortable situation of supporting and sustaining the organization or community in the processes of unfreezing, change, and refreezing in order to assure the survival in and adaptation to its external environment in constant change. Furthermore, they can balance the integration of the organization’s internal processes to ensure the capacity to keep the whole system alive while adapting to the natural cycle of life.

Reflection and discussion issues Discuss the following questions with colleagues and other leaders, and develop conclusions together. ●

●

●

Why is the building of a learning organization relevant as the precondition for organizational development and change? Why should everybody in an organization or a community commit themselves to “continual improvement” to shift the ways they are used to think and behave? What could “transformative learning“ (stages of competences) mean? What do you suggest as a learning design to overcome the cultural “blind spot“ and/or “unconsciousness of incompetence”? Knowing that there are different ways of learning and understanding ideas and priorities, what should the essence of the learning organization be to make the deep learning cycle possible that integrates diversity of learning behaviors?


94


10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM


95

Further reading

●

4.4

Klein, Eric & John Izzo (1998). Awakening Corporate Soul. Four Paths to Unleash the Power of People at Work. Lions Bay, Fairwinds Press. Koonce, Richard (2001). “Redefining diversity. It is not the just right thing to do. It also makes good business sense,” in Training and Development, Vol. 55, No. 12, 22–32.

Leaders – more than just change agents

Too often there is a detachment between the top-managers and what is happening at the bottom of the organization. When they enthusiastically come up with innovative ideas for the growth of their companies, they are amazed by the indifference they find diffusing from their workforce. Instead of initiating and paying more attention to the necessary interaction between the workers and the management level while seeking to critically evaluate the climate of “lethargy” and to inspect the current outcome of management strategies, many top-managers tend to play down the situation, and thus to fail to take action in the search for causes within the organization. There is serious tension between the top management and the workforce. Frustration, resignation, and inner exile at different levels are the result, before any change program and intervention plan can be articulated. Analyzing in depth the structure, function, and relationships to the core activity and assumptions of the organization, before effective strategies for change should be set into action is regarded by many change management researchers, scholars and consultants as relevant (see Section 2.4). Cultural analysis is suggested as necessary when change efforts should be directed at the overall organization level and at the level of subsystem supervised by leaders functioning in this context as “change agents” (see Section 4.1; Driskill and Brenton, 2005). Before any change can occur, leaders have to find out and understand the learning ability of the organization or community they are leading (see Section 4.3). At its essence, leaders have to leverage organizational learning effort to acquire the capabilities of cultural analysis by enhancing comprehension, communication, and conceptualization. This process helps to create sense and give the sense of being a learning organization. The heart of a learning organization lies within the collective reflection – or the “thinking together” in Senge’s terms (1990). The


●


10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM


learning team develops collective action through interacting and mutually creating vision and meanings that shift the current orientation from the inwardly internalized old model to the outwardly exchanged new model (see Section 2.4). Within this context, leaders act as a model and are modelling the way by building with others an adaptive learning society and organization. They encourage and support their environment to question the ongoing cultural patterns (see Section 2.2). The learning experiences are reflected in the system of knowledge – embedded in cultural analysis, which becomes the purpose and the tool for transformation (see Section 4.2). Communicating the vision of transformation without any sense of purpose or of the “reason to be more” (see Section 2.3), without any credibility or methods and tools, a passionate learning society cannot develop the new skills and capabilities required for deeper insight, and finally for transformative learning. A passionate learning society is when people see, feel, and understand the urgency of learning, and thus the need of improvement. Organizational change implies strategies and supports so that leaders can develop skills and tools to assist their people to new thoughts for the change of behaviors and to reinforce the new behaviors. Organizational change involves all stakeholders inside and outside of the organization (see Section 7.1). Progress empowered by leadership comes from the experience of the reflective use of the system of knowledge and from the correlation with emotional intelligence (Higgs and McGuire, 2001; Goleman, 1998). So one of the strategies is that leaders must develop skills of articulating the vision of transformation to all stakeholders in such a way that they can identify with and feel part of that new vision. There is a shared emotional ownership (see Section 4.2). Vision must be conveyed as an end state where all the plans and strategies will take all of them to the state where all of them wish to be the future. Hence, it is not a far remote future, but an actual future ensuring a long-term safety. Vision speaks to the heart and contains visualized story of success and happiness. Leaders are visualizers and actualizers in the sense that while they are visualizing success they can convey visually how to make it happen. Associated with the urgency of transformation reinforced with visualized goals and actions, the intrinsic feelings espouse the motors of change (see Section 4.2). Consequently, transformation implies continual improvement that takes into consideration clear strategies and plans how to reduce resistance towards change and learning barriers as well as how to prevent alienation from organizational culture and corporate


96


10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM

97

culture (see Section 4.2). Vision becomes visible and meaningful, when short-term successes are achieved and celebrated. This helps to overcome learning anxiety, and thus resistance. Continual improvement should not be articulated as a heteronymous need, but is experienced as the delight of the necessity to “survive”. Continual improvement requires learning ability moving from individual to team (collective) learning (see Section 4.3). Transformation is discontinuous change (see Section 4.2). All members of a learning organization develop an understanding of the system of profound knowledge through which individuals in dialogue deconstruct old meaning and reconstruct new meaning to organizational life, to events, and to interrelationships and interactions between the people for an organizational paradigm shift (see Section 2.3). Within the organization leaders build a learning ambiance in which the members get the insight of the system of profound knowledge that they apply in every kind of relationship with other people and the environment (Deming, 1986). By being an example of an active listener and observer, by mentoring their followers in the acquisition of learning ability, leaders set a basis of inspiring and pulling people away from their hitherto undebatable cultural practices and beliefs and moving them into the new mental model for the transformation of the organization without the feeling of failure or of guilt about the past (see Section 2.4). The past provides the initial point of discontinuous orientation, but should be the standards for transformational shift (see Section 4.3). Organizations and their “change agents” interact mutually as perpetual learners for that leader-shift (see Sections 2.4 and 4.3). Learning is the force to move on, to improve continuously by developing discontinuously. However, to create a learning organization, leaders are advised to get the insight of their learning habit and the consciousness of different types of learning. By doing so, they refine the learning ability of how to learn, and not merely what to learn. Leading others requires first the ability to lead oneself. Dee Ward Hock, founder and former CEO of the Visa Credit Card Association, emphasized the development of leadership within oneself first: “Control is not leadership; management is not leadership; leadership is leadership. If you seek to lead, invest at least 50 per cent of your time in leading yourself – your own purpose, ethics, principles, motivation, conduct. Invest at least 20 per cent leading those with authority over you and 15 per cent leading your peers” (quoted from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/07/097one.html date access 6 August 2010) (see Section 3.3).




10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM

Becoming aware of one’s own incompetence or knowing that one does not know is considered by Bennis, Schein, Senge, Scholtes and many other scholastic trainers “self-insight”: “Once we are in a leadership position, our own needs and the expectations of others dictate that we know the answer and be in control of the situation. Yet if we provide answers, we are creating a culture that continues to learn is for leaders themselves to realize that there is much that they do not know and must teach others to accept that there is much that they do not know. The learning task then becomes a shared responsibility” (Schein, 2004:398). The limit of one’s knowledge, thus the awareness of any possible blind spot, is best experienced in the confrontation with a completely different pattern, system, or culture. Knowledge is not merely a degree of a skill but the acknowledgment of incompleteness combined with the capability in critical thinking and the willingness for action without which there is no consciousness of what could make a difference. Leadership is the ability to recognize the gap between what is and what should be before the consequence of that deficiency becomes an emergency. Anderson and Ackerman Anderson distinguished the conscious from the unconscious transformation approach: “When leaders take the conscious approach, they have greater awareness about what transformation requires and the strategic options available to them to address its unique dynamics successfully” (2001:51), whereas the unconscious transformation would take place when leaders are unconscious and thus take a reactive approach. These leaders would “respond automatically and unconsciously to the dynamics of transformation based on their conditioned habits, existing knowledge, and dominant leadership style” (ibid.). According to them, conscious expanded awareness would make leaders perceive the deep and subtler dynamics that otherwise go unnoticed. By expanding their awareness leaders experience contrarily their limits of knowledge. “The ability to acknowledge complexity may also imply the willingness and emotional strength to admit uncertainty and to embrace experimentation and possible errors as the only way to learn” (Schein, 2004:410). This awareness is the high self-insight of the risk of being blindsided by change-related problems and would make the leaders rather more sensitive of processes that would be ignored or overseen. The capability of developing conscious awareness makes them to foreseers. But how can one acquire expanded awareness? Schein suggested in simple words: “travel more.” “Travel more” is an action. Accordingly, “conscious expanded awareness” is not a passive meditative state. It suggests that leaders should acquire eye-open




10/5/2010 10:13:10 AM

99

experiences through cross-cultural encounters. Schein (2004) obviously believed that leaders with multicultural familiarities and multiple confrontations with different patterns, organizations, and paradigms would gain through these experiences more self-insight and power to know how to overcome some of the constraining cultural assumptions embedded tacitly in their own cultures and organizations. The knowledge of going through self-experienced painful unlearning processes to relearn new patterns is the key knowledge of leaders leading the learning organization through and to challenging transformation. “Change programs therefore often have to begin with educational efforts, which may take time and energy. Such programs do not disconfirm directly by challenging existing views but, rather, seduce the change targets by providing new and stimulation information that subtly challenges existing views” (Schein, 2009:111). Consequently, leaders are not just change agents or managers. There is a well-known saying from Fred A. Manske, the former CEO of Purolator Courier, Ltd and Vice President of FedEx: “The ultimate leader is one who is willing to develop people to the point that they eventually surpass him or her in knowledge and ability.” Leaders helping others to surpass themselves are “transformation masters.” They have the capability to inspire others to go beyond their current comfort zone to expand their profound knowledge. They are masters of two principles: “Principle One: Survival anxiety or guilt must be greater than learning anxiety. Principle Two: Learning anxiety must be reduced rather than increasing survival anxiety” (Schein, 2009:114). While accepting their incompleteness, they transform insurmountable challenges into opportunities. Fears become power to the person who knows how to commute fears into creativity and progress. Elbert Hubbard’s words: “The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one.” (Quoted from: http://www.leader-values.com/Content/ quotes.asp?Letter=E date access 6 August 2010 ) Becoming transformation masters, they are qualified to be transformation mentors for others. From their own experiences of overcoming anxieties and uncertainties, backed by clear vision and leadership competences, they gain confidence and trust from their followers. Challenges are not threatening forces, when leaders know how to tackle them. They are predestined to develop the ability to confront, guide, and support their members in the unlearning processes by still giving them confidence to master difficulties as a lifelong experience. In other words, leading the members safely through unlearning and relearning requires high qualities, such as resilience and coping competencies.




10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM

100


In reference to the cultural paradigm shift and transformational change, we conclude so far that leaders of a learning organization should adopt the following roles and functions:

Based on the identification of the dynamics and the interdependencies of the system (cultural analysis and the system of knowledge), they focus on forecasting the seeds of change rather than on giving the precise direction of change in the very beginning. They visualize future scenarios where their organization and community face strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities and threats, and design the optimum outcome for survival and growth. They produce strategies on how to develop joint efforts and key power groups and leaders to generate synergies in the support of change and of building stability through uncertainties. They design transformative learning as action learning in which the future is visualized and foresight is cultivated. 2. Sensitive cultural analyst As cultural analysts leaders have to know how to use culture. As functional and symbolic interactionalist system, culture can initiate and promote change, but as structuralist stabilizer, it inhibits change. Understanding how change is viewed by the organization and how the organization acts towards change either integrating, differentiating, or fragmenting, allows leaders to adopt flexible multi-frame thinking to stimulate creative solutions and visions. Adjusting change strategies, leaders refine their knowledge about the interrelationships between and among the system components, and pay attention to the perceptions of different stakeholders, such as employees and other leaders, but also to customers, partners, suppliers, and competitors, as well as to the social and ecological environment. They apply their system of profound knowledge and translate SPK for continual improvement for managing change.


1. Anticipatory strategist

3. Visualizer of values Leaders are values integrators. They embody the behaviors adapted to the need of the environment. With intuitive foresight and sensitivity for different perspectives they develop a sense of urgency and create from this insight a powerful guiding vision. They visualize hope in deep and powerful meaning that empowers their people to work for something because they believe in the future of their actions. The values and hope


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM


101

4. Activist of the reasons-to-be-more They are not talking the walk in the pulpit. They walk the talk on moving solidarity and action of a collective force to discover new “shore”. Leaders have an understanding of how to practice “culture” or of how to give sense and meaning in such a way that change appears to revitalize the organizational reasons-to-be. Giving meaning to the concerns about the world-to-come they inspire, activate, and mobilize people in the search for adequate responses to the reasons-to-be-more. On the process of adaptive interpretation of reality, followers feel they are at the very heart of the quest of the world of excellence. By the convergence of reality mediated by leaders, followers get the feelings they as the community are the reasons-to-be for the responsibility of excellent survival. The guarantee of growth is thus seen to ensue from the group or community’s commitment which gets a centered meaning in the process of change. Leaders are activists in their mobilization of facilitators of creating more change. They invest in the potential and opportunities to consolidate a learning society of improvements. Their exemplary contributions ensure the transformation from the current reasons-to-be into the successful world-to-come. 5. Powerful awareness-raiser Knowing how to exercise influences not on but more for the interest of the community and how to shape the dynamics of change, leaders work power issues from the inside out. They start with themselves first by developing self-insight and critical reflection of their own functional and dysfunctional patterns enhancing or inhibiting growth. This selfawareness opens the pathways to access to learning an ongoing process at a turning point. Profound knowledge is driven by awareness and generates the basis for the development of skills and competences to meet challenges. With this knowledge, leaders are skilled to apply ways in which to use the power of leadership to open awareness in others in order to influence their thoughts and actions. Being a powerful awareness-raiser leaders breed the spirit of leadership. Thus, they


become moving activities and actions. Leaders are modeling the way to the “shore,” where their community wants to go and to re-create a “hopeful” world. Hope is not an illusionary wish. The message of hope coherent with the values shared by the collective consensus defines the world of the future which would otherwise remain confused and vague. Visualized hope increases more hope, when small wins are along the way of achievable progress.


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM

102


produce more leaders, and not more followers, by making their people believe in the reasons-to-be-more so as to get them to believe in themselves and find inner safety for the unending journey.

Leaders focus on vision and hope. They make sure their words become actions and are consistent through focusing their resilient spirit on goals by surmounting hardship. The friend of fears is courage. Maya Angelou, educator and author, said, “Courage is the most important of all the virtues, because without courage you can’t practice any other virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically but nothing consistently without courage.” So, leaders do not just have the courage, but they are the example of courage. Going beyond their fears, they convey the hope of achieving the shore in light sight at the right time. Courage as exemplary excellence becomes a leadership habit. The embodiment of courage comforts and encourages others to face fears so as to see challenges as opportunities. Additionally, the ability of vanquishing fears and uncertainties includes the capability not to work against resistance, but to go along with it for the best and to explore the positive sides of hardship of change for the best. 7. Compassionate communicator Their communication is clarifying and providing relevant information. Beyond that, leaders know how to convey the urgency of change by appealing collective engagement for individual well-being. They have the ability to translate conventional ideas into innovative ideas and to give them sustainable values. Their effective and convincing communication encourages the people to move on and to bind the people together through mutual respect and actions so as to achieve the common goal of consolidating improvements. Being aware of their group’s energy and power they engage their people more fully in the reflection where the group is now and in the negotiation on seeking change from that position. They facilitate participation in the change process and make sure that decision-making capacities contribute to the collective creation of the place or the world in which the people want to be together. As compassionate communicator they demonstrate the ability of active listening and observing not just to address meaningful feedback, but to connect multiple perspectives and to interlink differences meaningfully to their people. They have the courage to respond to tensions and conflicts with respect to feelings and emotions without overkill from digging too deep.


6. Vanquisher of fears


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM


103

Leaders create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect where people are generous with positive words and actions and help each other to succeed. Through active listening and empathic observation people learn to reflect their own patterns, to overcome different fragmentations, and be willing to engage themselves in the development with others of new patterns of meanings and relationships. Leaders make strong relationships actively work while addressing equity and inclusiveness. They can inspire collective reflection to the extent of generating ethical behavioral considerations, and extending team spirit to corporate social responsibility (CSR). By rendering change as an urgent and worthwhile journey for everybody, leaders emphasize the relevance of the people’s ties and solidarity to contribute efficacy to the transformation. Providing a positive image of a common future, linking shared values and vision, amplifying membership of a world of excellence, establishing a supportive environment of social relations, they know how to use binding and bonding to make alliances and coalitions to enable energizing mobilization for change. 9. Pragmatic practitioner Leaders need strategies, methods, and tools to disengage from the past but to engage for the future. Transformation requires time and patience; leaders must use multiple strategies and points to develop organizational arrangement, and to control and manage change. Continual improvement is not easily quantitatively measurable. They know how to make results of organizational learning, such as openness, courage, confidence, innovativeness, and so on, qualified and valuable. They facilitate time, different resources, information, and management infrastructure to support the people’s engagement and their community’s commitment to transformation. Building constructive feedback mechanisms or encouraging feedback loops can improve effective performance, but is not a guarantee to surface or enfeeble resistance to change nor to prove what has changed for the good. Events and opportunities such as celebrating collective results and recognizing extraordinary rewards by exchanging reflections and actions can make unquantifiable results visible and worthwhile wins as well as strengthening the collective acknowledgment of improvement to overcome the fragmentation brought about by incomprehensibility for sense of moving on.


8. Team and relationships builder

10. Enthusiastic mentor and coach As a role model they share their knowledge to illustrate the value and meaning of learning experiences for growth beyond the current status


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM


quo and to bring out followers’ potential in such a way that they believe in themselves, thus are motivated to overcome insurmountable challenges and to pursue goals and visions. By guiding, mentoring, and using reflection and awareness-raising questions they assist their followers to gain insight and to benefit from cooperative learning and new ways of looking at things and finding solutions. They assist them to commute uncertainties and risks into opportunities for developing new strategies and capacities. By amplifying relationships between leaders and followers and among them, leaders encourage others to “shift” themselves from followers to leaders and mentors by example. Their attitudes and behaviors are mirrored in the ways they leading others to become role models of transformation. It is not always a nice job. Being a leader and mentor means being able to use emotional intelligence in order to open the mind and the heart, as well as to show willingness in the face of difficult consequences. They work hard at the aspiration for excellence of performance.

Summary questions ● ● ●

●

Why is profound knowledge important for change management? What would cultural analysis imply? What does “frame breaking” learning mean? What role should leaders play in this process? What other roles do leaders have other than the role of a change agent? To what extent are these roles important for organizational development?


●

●

●

How would you make a distinction between an organization and a learning organization? What cultural concept would you apply here? Explain the benefits of the metaphor “travel more” and associate it with cross-cultural learning! What tensions and differences would one be faced with in cross-cultural meetings? What kind of awareness would one develop from these experiences? How would you integrate the awareness in the concept of continual improvement? Work with your own experiences. What are the essential qualities of leaders for organizational development and change? Find out reasons why vision is the motivator for change. How would you make vision concrete, applicable, and manageable? Try to apply Maslow’s concept of needs (see exhibit 4.1).


104


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM


105

●

●

●

We know that organizational cultures are developed through interactions and become inherent in individual and collective behaviors. Study the history of an old established organization and introduce interviews with people of different generations experiencing the organization in different time periods. Find out what happens when external influences and internal change affect the organization and by extension the individuals and the interviewees within that community. Trace back the habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting of that community and how it meets problems at a particular point in time. Set up assumptions about ways in which leaders at that point of time would have positively managed the enforced or imposed organizational change. Develop observation tools, criteria, and questions to find out whether your organization is a learning organization. Then, apply your methods to two other organizations where you have friends. Finally, continue to compare and evaluate the results. Classify them in two simple categories of progressive and regressive learning organization. To increase your own awareness, discuss your discovery with your friends and reflect on your and their arguments based on such questions as: How would you define a progressive and regressive learning organization? To what extent is this observation relevant for transformative learning? Similarly: If cultures have a strong impact on an organization’s structure and development, how can leaders and managers use culture as a tool to strive for excellent performance and achieve high shareholder value as requested in our globalized competitive world? What are the points and counterpoints for the assumption that a positive learning organization does not necessarily assure efficiency, but more effectiveness in attaining goals? Discuss the correlation between efficiency and effectiveness from different views of different cultural paradigms and use for your definition critical reflection on values systems and on the concept of “what we don’t know we don’t know.” In other words, how do we discover the meanings of efficiency and effectiveness, when we are trapped by our cultural bias, by our social value system, according to Schein’s theory (2004)? And based on what concept of mental frame does our measurability refer to, when talking about efficiency and effectiveness?


●

●



Bennis, Warren, J. Parikh, and R. Lessem (1994). Beyond Leadership. Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology. Oxford, Blackwell Ltd. Prigogine, Ilya (1997). The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York, Free Press. Randall, Julian (2004). Managing Change/Changing Managers. New York, Routledge.


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM

●

● ●

●


Scharmer, Otto C. (2004). Theorie U: Leading Profound Innovation and Change by Presencing Emerging Futures. MIT. [Online] www.ottoschaermer.com. Deming’s change management concepts and tools: www.deming.org Scharmer’s Theory U and self-transcending knowledge: www.dialogonleadership.org Different concepts and tools: www.mindtools.com

4.5 From uncertain protection of values to sustainable values creation In an age of high mobility and accelerating change leaders and managers become more the subjects of the increasing complexity of unpredictable change, unlike those of the past. Too often, people are unaware of their culture until they are confronted with a completely different system. But even then, there are still managers overseeing these situations as the moment to detect the blind spots of their organizations which have been undetectable most of the time. The denial of the challenge as the opportunity for a deeper analysis and a profound knowledge of current organizational performance reflects the prevailing of the underlying assumptions and the ideology that people carry inside their heads and hearts affecting their daily actions (see Section 2.3). The taken-forgranted paradigm is collectively unquestioned; it provides feelings of security and safety as it gives orientation how to perceive the world and the problems, but also how to deal with them and how to solve them. Leaders with high self-reflection as well as self-confidence, when faced with an opposite paradigm or being challenged by the differences, increase their sensitivity and intuition to discover the enrichment in the unknown (see Section 3.5). They are willing to enter new “lands”, thus to explore alternatives, and so they become more innovative for their own organization. At its essence, leadership for transformation is a shift from “what we know, to what we don’t know, to what we don’t know we don’t know” (see Inayatullah, 2007; also Section 7.5). This shift is challenging and could be painful at a certain point. But transformational leaders have the courage to leave the comfort zone, moving outside the comfortable paradigm in order to go beyond borders and to break the conversant frame (see Argyris and Schön’s “double-loop learning” (1978); also Section 4.3). Being courageous is not merely a personal trait (see Section 3.1.1); far more leaders for transformation act for the sustainable survival of their community and society. It is a question of social responsibility rather than a question of courage. It requires more


106


10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM

107

courage not to take actions to be able to assure the survival of that one is in charge of, and after all of those one is responsible for. Breaking the conversant frame which has become a persuading system and internalized habits so far challenges at bottom not the unknown, but, in fact, the old patterns. Leaving the old system and old path is often perceived as dissolving commitment and disloyalty, as if one has broken relationships for the uncertain unknown. Contrary to as well as in addition to Weick and Quinn’s (1999) suggestion that change is driven externally, risks and threats occur not necessarily externally, but also internally from the system in which leaders are trying to move on (see table 4.1). Facing fear within or outside the system is a great challenge, as leaders have to accept that they cannot control either the roots or the directions caused and effected by fears. For most people, risk is real. Many change management experts develop different tools to measure, estimate and control risks. Risk management is, for example, one of the disciplines in change management consulting. However, most experts and scholars know that threats are difficult to estimate, as threats and risks are part of the unpredictable dynamics of a complex world riding on rapid change. Furthermore, threats are biased through cultural frameworks of perception and interpretation due to the value system taken for granted (see Section 2.5). There are not only cultural collective variabilities, but also the individual differences in defining and experiencing the pain threshold for change. Crossing borders and new trails to discover the unknown demands openness and acceptance of risks and uncertainties as a great challenge for innovation. Transformational leaders are “state-of-the-art”. Taking risk and being innovative is not an innate attribute of personality quality, but it demonstrates “action strategy effectiveness” in the development of “the art of survival“ (Argyris & Schön, 1978; see also Section 4.3). Not for self-interest, but as a sound strategy of viability and survival for others, in fact, finally for oneself, as well as in interest for well-being on the whole, leaders search for more developmental potential for their community and society, thus seeing more chances at the new shore than the risk of remaining stagnant. Risks get the meaning leaders and the organization in the transformational process want to give. Are risks a threat or a chance as the turning point? The way in which we give value to challenges and change affect the way we accept and tackle uncertainties while unlearning old “ground” to build a new “home”. We define and construct the future we want to have and get (Inayatullah, 2007).




10/5/2010 10:13:11 AM


Consequently, leadership’s degree of excellence in management for “growth” results from the ability to let go of the predictability and the taken-for-granted security to face and cope actively with the challenges of continuous “unlearning“ on the path of “discontinuous” development (see Section 4.2). Redefining an old model with a new model, replacing convention with innovation is for the residing group a kind of “loss of face” as well as a “loss of faith.” What they have been believing until then seems to lose value and legitimation. Shifting from the present to the future with the focus on the past undermines enormous energy and efforts, and increases fears and tension. Keeping hold of the past inhibits a step forwards and covers foresight. Much depends on how to “unfreeze” encrusted behavioral patterns opposing change (see Section 4.3). The point of success for transformation lies not simply in how to confront tensions, but in how to reduce tensions for a new perception. Therefore, for good transformational leadership, it is necessary to prepare and explain the people affected by change as early as possible, so that they are involved in validating and refining the changes themselves by giving positive meanings to uncertainties and challenges. When people perceive and recognize change as desired for their future, they see, feel, and experience the “unfreezing“ process neither as loss nor as threat, but as a releasing action for the better. Organizations missing the opportunity of development and improvement have been too long in the status of stagnancy and take the risk of being heteronymous, instead of being adaptive and anticipative. Their delayed action will be a reaction to the challenges; then it is too late to be proactive (see Section 4.2). For this, leaders must have foresight and vision. The insight they have increased to understand the system, the organization and environment in which they are and those of the peoples involved with them is based on the pro-vision of where they want to go, when and why, and what measures will be needed for having got there (see Section 4.4). Only then they are resilient to meet resistance and challenge and become transformation masters to assist their people and the organization on the transition from an old to a new paradigm by planning the change process in appropriate achievable small steps of success and safety (see Section 4.3). Leading people as well as being led by others requires trust. Trust, a social phenomenon emerging from multidimensional interaction, forms the basics of bonding and attachment concepts and contributes to the foundation of relationships. Luhmann (2000) made a distinction between trust, confidence and familiarity. Although they are different types of self-assurance, which is relevant for the stabilization


108


10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM

109

of relationships, they use self-reference in different ways. Luhmann believed that “familiarity is an unavoidable fact of life; trust is a solution for specific problems of risk. But trust has to be achieved within a familiar world, and changes may occur in the familiar features of the world which will have an impact on the possibility of developing trust in human relations” (2000:94). Trust is a tentative way of coping with uncertainties, thus with unfamiliar situations. It presupposes a situation of risk (ibid.: 98). The future is not predictable; it is elusive. Trust requires the engagement and belief in something that we don’t know yet. Trust “is an attitude which allows for risk-taking decisions” (ibid.:103). Although trust and confidence refer to the degree of reliance, Luhmann (2000) drew attention to the different roots of these two notions. Lack of confidence will lead to feelings of alienation, whereas lack of trust reduces the range of possibilities for rational action. It prevents, for example, capital investment under conditions of uncertainty and risk; it may reduce public interest in innovative art which is not yet recognized, and so on. “Through lack of trust a system may shrink below a critical threshold necessary for its own reproduction at a certain level of development” (ibid.:104). Disappointment would be the result in cases of both loss of trust and loss of confidence. So, trust and confidence implicate certain expectations and are based on positive assumptions. According to Luhmann (2000) the perception and evaluation of risk is highly subjective and depends on the individual giving value to risk. “It differentiates people and promotes a different type of risk-seeking or risk-avoiding, trusting or distrusting, individuality” (ibid.:100). I would say, trust is an extrovert activity, whereas confidence has a selfreferential as well as an another-referential component. In this regard, the question arises as to whether people with a strong internal locus of control and a high self-confidence can trust external phenomena more freely and lightly, in comparison to those with an external locus of control having more confidence in their own people and less trust in others (see Section 4.2). Trust is a two-way process of giving and receiving. It is necessary not only to trust others, but also to believe that one is trusted by others. In reference to leadership and transformation, followers need to have trust and confidence. They have trust in the future which has not been familiar to them yet, but they have confidence in their leader’s competence in providing the future they are hoping for. Reciprocally, leaders have confidence in their people making the future they are working on come true. Both leaders and followers share the belief in each other’s capability to “do the right thing.”




10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM

When uncertainty prevails, encouraging communication is the key to building and enforcing trust. Positive feedback strengthens confidence and the bond between followers and leaders (Misztal, 1996). Leaders inspire trust and mobilize trust by means of trust through giving meanings to trust transformation (Inayatullah, 2007). The degree of participation in creating meaning in the future engages and activates people to go beyond threats for trust. Trust in the future generates a reality of positive vision, creates a belief in undiscovered possibilities, creates optimistic expectations, and thus strikes a trustful self-fulfillling path. Threat leads as well as up the self-fulfillling path, however, in another direction of negative expectations. The confidence that leaders have in their followers to “do the right thing” produces incentives for people to take and accept risks. On the other hand, leaders should be provident and care for their people and not put them in threatening situations, because they bank on too much trust and risk pains that are not necessary. Then, leaders would lose not only trust, but also confidence (Luhmann, 2000). To sum up, followers need to be able to trust the leaders’ giving the reasons-to-be-more; they feel by having confidence in themselves for the better empowered for the change (see Sections 3.4 and 4.4). Clear communication is associated with visualized and actualized vision which builds trust on the threshold of threats. According to Shamir et al. (1993) leadership has impact on the emergence of values. Derived from the endangered status quo, leaders give new direction and define the viability and survival of their organizations and communities. By representing integrity, credibility, and accountability leaders for transformation have above charismatic power knowledge and competences to inspire foresight to create a new model between personal and social values guiding them towards change (see Section 4.4). Leaders need to shape the beliefs as well as behaviors of their people and to prepare them to face global crisis and local challenges. They promote values providing faith and trust in making a meaningful contribution to a sustainable life based on value creation of responsibility. In order to produce familiarity in uncertain situations they cultivate sense of community, social bonding, and attachment. Survival is not merely a vision; it becomes reality, when leaders create economic value hand in hand with social responsibility effecting shareholders and employees, thus all stakeholders. Being a model for others, they respond to challenges and crisis through foresight and innovation and assure trust and confidence. The respect they show to their people and the environment, and the integrity they build into their life for the organization, make them trustworthy; people gain reliance on the transformation’s outcomes.




10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM

111

As said above, leaders for transformation are not conventional; they do things that others have not done before. By breaking the frame, they introduce a new paradigm, thus a new social value system. When change absorbs a lot of energy, the investment in the “value creation“ should be wisely long-term and assures not just simply any form of survival, but a “virtual circle” of viability in collective well-being. Value does not mean merely the calculation of costs and benefits; it implies a multi-perspective view focusing on a holistic concept of well-being. According to RussellBennett et al. (2009) the theorization and empirical evidence of value creation paradigm has not been sufficiently well investigated, although a good conceptualization of value creation is desired especially to reach out to the environment at large, for example through marketing to promote value change limited not only within but beyond the organization. With environment at large it is meant that the environment is not only narrowly perceived as a group of consumers and stakeholders directly related to the organization. It is an extended environment, which also includes those groups and the physical environment that are directly and indirectly affected by the organization’s activities. Russell-Bennett et al. (2009) suggested marketing as a way to reach out to customers and the environment at large involved in the value creation but also as a multiplying force for value creation. The new value creation is best supported when the groups affected by organizational change are actively involved in the value development process. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) believed that value creation is an inclusive process involving customers playing an active role even in the position of companies’ recipients of products and services. For any social change co-creation of value is important as empowering and promoting processes. In any co-creation interaction and participation represent the core instruments for leaders and managers to convey meanings, reinforce beliefs and behaviours, and encourage activities espousing the value creation. Russell-Bennett et al. (2009) cited examples from Australia showing how marketing programs created values affecting the behaviors beyond the firms by asking consumers and by co-creating with them the behavioral change, for example, in water use habits. Russell-Bennett et al.’s conceptualization of value creation, as a process whereby the customers are also required to participate in meaning-making for behavioral transformation, differs from previous models such as Porter’s (1980), where value is created within the organization. In a similar direction as Russell-Bennett et al., Barrett (2010) emphasizes the role of the leader in value creation: “The culture of an organisation is a direct reflection of the personal consciousness of the leaders. Therefore, cultural transformation or whole




10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM


● ● ●

“Fact 1: employee fulfillment drives customer satisfaction. Fact 2: Customer satisfaction drives shareholder value. Fact 3: Leadership development drives employee fulfillment.” (ibid.)

Barrett (2010) concludes, “there is a causal link between leadership development and shareholder value that passes through employee fulfillment and customer satisfaction. We have found this link to be present in all successful companies” (ibid.). Here we conclude that the more people, thus the environment at large, that are in the co-creation of a sustainable future and experience the direct satisfaction of the achievement of the values they can identify with, the cultural paradigm shift extends its realm of transformation. When vision becomes actualized through value creation, people find trust and confidence in the system, thus the organization, the society, and environment they are forming and supporting by their own actions. Transformation is not a threat but confirms the improvement of well-being. In the context of consumer satisfaction Russell-Bennett explained that “the achievement of satisfaction is important as this leads on to intentions to perform the behaviour again and subsequently, the desired behaviours” (2009:215). In the context of globalization leaders for transformation should play the role of value creation activists. Being a role model and having communications skills they mobilize and anchor values in their stakeholders and societies of self-image (identity) and of social responsibility. Their visions and strategies have impact on social and economic changes: labor markets, transformations of jobs and careers, lifestyles and ways of life (single person and new family models), redefinition of civil society organizations (unions, churches, non-profit organizations, and so on), lifestyle politics, and survival politics (Giddens, 1990). Scholars see in the value creation the production of incentives for social responsibility, and vice versa. Social responsibility and the involvement of stakeholders including customers and consumers are dynamically interrelated to each other by the organization and development of the culture which finally provides the value system giving meanings to the viability and survival‘s strategies and activities. McEwan emphasized the relevance of today’s social responsibility as an increasingly complex


system change cannot occur without a change in the behaviours of the leaders. This is why we recommend that organizations begin by mapping the values of the senior executives before they map the values of employees” (www.valuescentre.com, date accessed 30 May 2010). He believes that there are three facts that are important for value creation fostering cultural transformation:


10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM


113

● ● ●

● ●

“individualism to communitarianism; exclusive property rights to inclusive membership rights; competitive markets, which determine consumer needs, to a broader societal evaluation of community needs; limited expansion to more extensive planning in the community; scientific specialization in favor of a holistic utilization of knowledge.” (2001:7)

In an economic globalized society driven by market orientation, consumerism, and monetarism leaders of any activity fields have a multidimensional mission to contribute to a cultural paradigm shift affecting the reorganization of the reigning neo-liberal faith in market competitive rivalry of profit-maximizing businesses. For example, Yunus (2006) called upon more cooperation which fosters complementarity and solidarity and requires capability of relationship-building. So instead of individualized competition the value creation and cultural shift should move towards the interests of the community without losing sight of individual needs. “A new ‘culture of coherence’ should be encouraged that acknowledges the roles of personal income and welfare in individual lives, but acknowledges the individual’s inability to sustain economic activity which supports human communities and relationships” (McEwan, 2001:94). Insofar as the value creation activism should get the value of sustainability, it is a matter of personal life, implying family, friends, job, recreation, education, self-improvement, and the community involvements that are organized around these activities. Value creation is not uni-linear or limited; it often has a much more extensive effect, thus should be used for a more extensive promotion reaching out to the community at large. For this, a holistic approach is appropriate. In the application of cultural shift to organizational change, communitarianism is the process of collective interaction of meaning and sense-making. The inclusive membership appeals to members for more responsibility for the life quality of the community which retroactively ensures their well-being. When stakeholders and community leaders are responsible for providing the advantages of being involved in value creation, they become symbolic owners of the quality they want to have for their life. The feelings of ownership of the vision expressed in shared values are reflected in the feedback loop, and thus necessary to strengthen corporate identity (see figure 4.1).


competing world for survival and reminded firms and companies of more business ethics and corporate social responsibility ensuring social changes based on a major cultural shift from:


10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM

In recent years, corporate social responsibility has become increasingly relevant for many organizational values that managers use to guide their decisions and strategies. These values form the basic assumptions and the fundaments of responsibility and relations towards different stakeholders’ groups, such as employees, as well as shareholders, customers, suppliers, partners, groups, and the physical environment concerned with the effect of the organization. McAlister et al. defined social responsibility as “the adoption by a business of a strategic focus for fulfilling the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities expected of it by its stakeholders. This definition encompasses a wide range of objectives and activities, including both historical views of business and perceptions that have emerged in the last decade” (2005:4). McAlister et al. (2005) reminded us that social responsibility should go further than customers and employees’ needs. I suggest that a longterm vision should take into consideration different stakeholders’ needs from which the value creation departs and includes above functional social as well as affective dimensions. Functional dimension refers to economic but also to political values; social dimension embraces ideological power, as well as social status and influences. Affective dimension reflects emotional orientation, such as tastes, preferences giving Transformation of Value System Vision

Strategy Paradigm A

Paradigm B Organization

Individualism

Communitarianism

Property Rights Competitive Markets

Corporate Social Responsibility

Value Creation

Scientific Specialization

Membership Rights Community Needs Holistic Approach

Leadership

Familiarity

Confidence



Feedback Loop Trust

Dynamics of Change

Figure 4.1 Cultural Paradigm Shift through Transformation of Value System


10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM

115

other dimensions directions for social responsibility based on striving for satisfaction and fulfillment. Social responsibility produces sources of relationships between stakeholders, such as customers, employees, investors and shareholders, suppliers, governments, communities, and the social and physical environment on the whole. Social responsibility shared and supported by a broad stakeholders’ group is relevant to vision and value creation aiming to achieve societal as well as individual change, as we have mentioned previously. Many surveys have been conducted to prove how social responsibility efforts of large corporations have a great impact on the environment and on local communities (McAlister et al., 2005). The corporations gain loyalty not just from the employees, but also from customers and recognition from the surroundings including competitors. The benefits of social responsibility are proven in long-term stakeholder relationships and excellent performance due to high employee commitment. Organizations which enhance change towards more social responsibility not only initiate a reciprocal transformation evolving within the organizations, as well as between the organizations and the environment, but also they can move a “virtuous circle” as responses to the challenges and drivers of change. Having vision or values should not remain as “something nice to have.” Businesses today are expected to focus beyond self-interest and recognize that they are part of a larger system, they belong to a society that expects responsible participation for the society on the whole and the environment. Accordingly, vision should become a “reason-to-be” of multidimensional values. People become the vision they want to have, and are the values they wish to obtain for themselves and for the coming generation. The feelings of ownership are therefore not constrained to the organization’s members. Change managers are advised to invest in meaningful, long-term “value(s)” creation by ensuring a cultural paradigm shift affecting the 7-S not only within the organization, but also the environment at large. The 7-S embraces: structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, and staff, which mutually (and systematically) influence each other (see figure 4.2). The 7-S model is often used in management as a tool to analyze the resources of an organization, and was developed by Peters and Waterman in 1982 (see e.g. Kerth et al., 2007). To conclude, leaders for transformation not only include those who believe in them, but also reach out for those who have not believe in them yet so far but are longing for a “new life”. When these followers




10/5/2010 10:13:12 AM


Structure

Systems

Shared Values

Skills

Style

Staff

Figure 4.2 7-S Model

gain the understanding that they have to go beyond the boundaries, to let the old self make way for a new one, leaders remove the boundaries to a broader horizon. They give meanings and trust; their communication and behavior for change focus on shared vision, thus building bridges of understanding and melting gaps between differences and polarities. In the unfamiliarities people recognize familiarity; and the emotions attached to the vision build up and sustain relationships. So trans-cultural leaders take care of their communication. For example, their language is generally “we” referential. The values are at the level of “trans-culture.” In the sense that the cultural peculiarities are not focused, but the shared need and hope are the basics for finding consensus allowing all in the process to overcome conventional frame-related values and behaviors. Inclusion would be the strategy. “Inclusion explicitly invites followers to engage with and embrace the leader’s values, while higher levels of abstraction open the space for followers to align their personal values with those of the leader (...) According to our model, the early unfreezing phase is a period of breaking personal ties to convention. The focus is on individuals, rather than society. One would thus expect relatively low levels of abstraction and less use of inclusion in the first phase. In contrast, one would expect greater use of abstract and inclusive language during the frame-moving phase, when


Strategy


10/5/2010 10:13:13 AM

117

charismatic leaders must actively engage their followers in a process of visualizing a change at the level of the collective. In the final phase, one would again expect inclusion and abstraction to be less critical since the move toward social-level change has already taken place” (Fiol et al., 1999:22). Positive communication based on dialogue through active listening and attentive observing as well as partnership through team and coalition building help to create trust with stakeholders and to collaborate with the environment at large. Change at the level of sustainable development requires broadening corporate vision going beyond financial performance. According to Inayatullah (year unknown), Westpac Bank in Australia has developed a new approach to measure progress and wealth based on three criteria: prosperity, social justice, and environment. Their corporate report (www.westpac.com. au) takes into consideration different issues such as ethical business, transparency, human rights, environmental concerns, caring for employees, and so on. Accordingly, a cultural paradigm towards a holistic approach of social responsibility is necessary to assure a longterm Social Return on Investment (SROI) and outlive the short-term financial return on investment. Organizations that invest beyond their self-interest would go beyond their self-framed boundaries. An SROI related to social responsibility not just limited to corporation but extended towards the environment at large is worthwhile in the long run. This is not impossible. “People are simply responding to incentives, so we need to ensure that the incentives on offer align with the social and environmental value that our economy needs to deliver” (Lawlor et al., 2009:27). It depends on what behaviors organizations and leaders encourage or discourage to promote Social Return on Investment. SROI is an analytic tool for a much broader concept of value which incorporates social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits into decision-making, providing a fuller picture of how value is created or destroyed. Consequently, leaders for transformation are not just visionary and innovative. By developing an adaptive system of incentives and recognizing SROI they encourage their followers to invest in sustainable survival creating beneficial changes for everyone concerned (Lawlor et al., 2009:28). Besides, “organizations and communities live with and in a natural world, and believe that they have a responsibility toward planetary sustainability – environment is no longer something out there for others to solve, an economic externality, rather, it has become defining for the success of an organization” (Inayatullah, year unknown).




10/5/2010 10:13:13 AM


●

●

●

Discuss how value creation affects marketing strategies, how marketing strategies could affect behavior and social responsibility, and finally how social responsibility affects sustainable development of the organization and the environment concerned. Explain how value system could be transformed into a new paradigm, what strategies within an organization are needed, and the functions of the feedback loop of those who are affected by the paradigm shift. Find out the role of ethics in value creation, and discuss the ethics you want for your own organization for sustainable viability.


●

●

Describe the relevance of familiarity, confidence and trust for leadership while managing change. Explain the reasons for uncertainty in organizational change and suggest strategies to overcome anxiety and fear. In what ways is value creation related to the creation of social responsibility? And to what extent is building social responsibility important for the implementation of the concept of Social Return on Investment?


●

●

Discuss and find out about different models of incentives to raise awareness and perception of benefits of investing in societal outcomes and sharing social responsibility. Find arguments for why Social Return of Investment is in its measurement closer to reality than financial ROI as it is a broadening approach. For more information on SROI visit: www.neweconomics.org/publications/aguide-to-social-return-on-investment. Develop communication strategies to lead people from anxiety to more trust, from short-term win to more momentarily elusive, but in the long run more sustainable, foresight.


●

●

●

● ● ●

Carroll, A. B. (1991). “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders”, in Business Horizons. July/August 1991. Foundation for the School of Business at Indiana. Hall, Brian (1995). Values Shift. A Guide to Personal and Organizational Transformation. Rockport, Twin Lights. McAlister, D. T., Ferrell, O.C., Ferrell, L.. (2005). Business and Society. A Strategic Approach to Social Responsibility. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company. Prahalad, C. K. & V. Ramaswamy (2004). “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation”, in Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 18, No 3, 5-14. The need of dialogue in leadership: www.dialogonleadership.org Social responsibility and SROI: www.neweconomics.org Values-driven Culture: www.valuescentre.com




10/5/2010 10:13:13 AM

5

Trans-cultural leadership is suggested as the new approach to preparing and guiding people through organizational change and development at a time of global diversification and greater mobility (see Sections 1.1 and 2.4). In the following chapters we will look at the definition of “trans-culture” more closely in order to be able to develop quite an extended definition of trans-cultural leadership, although different aspects of this concept have already been presented in previous chapters. So far, we know that trans-cultural leadership is not simply managing diversity which is often used in a cross-cultural context, nor is it reduced to situational leadership which is often suggested as a flexible leadership concept for different cultural context (see Section 3.2). First, trans-cultural leaders are trans-cultural in the sense that they cannot be allocated to a particular culture. People follow them not because of their affiliation with any national, social, political, religious, or thus with any cultural backgrounds, but because people can identify with the vision and action for a worthwhile survival and have trust in leadership competences for transformation. Hence, and secondly, trans-cultural leaders are not merely leaders knowing how to manage diversity, but they bring about a new set of values or new culture emerging from the resource of diversity with vision and action breaking conventional paradigms and to shift to promoting an effective sustainable transformation beyond organizational and any cultural frame, but to embracing different stakeholders within the organization as well as the environment at large (see Section 4.5). In other words, trans-cultural leadership is, by definition, a new-paradigm leadership of transformation. The transformation starts with the developing self-mastery to transcend cultural boundaries. By doing so, trans-cultural leaders use the


Trans-Cultural Leadership

119


10/5/2010 12:41:00 PM

enrichment of diversity not to highlight the particularities, but to find commonness and to develop trans-cultural synergy across the differences. In a world of increasing pluralism of experiences due to rapid information exchanges as well as due to the consequences of globalization, leaders must generate shared understandings on a high level of “abstraction.” Durkheim (1933) referred this level of abstraction as the “common conscience.” Contrary to Durkheim’s suggestion of abstraction in the sense of increasing cultural rationalization, I believe that hope and trust in a sustainable survival cannot be displaced on the other side of abstraction and thus remain a wishful vision. Shared understandings that are the fundamental needs for a meaningful survival must result from the “hunger” for a meaningful survival of the here and now and from the urgency to take actions to make this vision come true. In that sense, “consciousness” emerges from psychological conditions that shape people’s wishes, feelings, and ways of thinking (Lukács, 1971). However, this need should not be restrained to internal and individual impetus. In a world of increasing differences and individualization, and where lone fighters are celebrated, there are more losers, and even the lucky ones have a short life. When people learn to understand that their well-being can only be ensured when they provide safety and support to each other to secure each other’s existence, thus, only through interactions and sharing with one another can their need unfold into an empowering vision and action. Cultural change is initiated, supported and moved along by the increasing collective sharing, creating, and experiencing meanings and achievements. Consequently, leaders for transformation get the understanding of the conditions of underlying needs and fears first, and then raise awareness and consciousness of going beyond the current potential for a new direction of what a fulfilling life is – and less of what it should be. At the same time, trans-cultural leaders are “trans-cultural models” of transformative learning, and therefore have the experiences to mentor learning organizations and communities to unlearn paradigms, to face fear, and only then to progress towards a more adaptive paradigm ensuring continual improvement. We conclude that trans-cultural leadership includes Bennis et al.’s (1994) concept of the global and new-paradigm manager moving from uncertainty to self-mastery, from conflict to social synergy, from management complexity to organizational learning, from change to sustainability. Accordingly, management style may differ not only across cultural diversity but also across situations, and a flexible management style is requested. However, in terms of




10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM


121

5.1 Leadership styles across cultures On the one hand, we observe that globalization homogenizes companies around the world in terms of economic structure, technology, and strategy (see Sections 1.1 and 2.1). Indeed, the majority of companies around the world look increasingly alike in their economic survival strategies. The culture represented by the global economic world results from the outcome of historic struggles between competing power groups (for example, colonial powers, first world countries, and so on) seeking to construct and define the leading standards and knowledge in ways that serve their own self-interests (Schaeffer, 1997). In spite of the homogenizing aspect, the global economic world is due to its ideology of competitive survival more exclusive than inclusive. Hence, the competing behavior is a specific phenomenon of certain cultures. Not all social groups have the urge to promote their own survival and self-interests at the expense of others (Earle, 2008; Plattner, 1989). Many historical observations from cultural anthropology provide a variation of good examples demonstrating that alternatives for cultural change are possible (Bennholdt-Thomsen and von Werlhof, 2001; Wilk, 1996). On the other hand, the managers and their staff have different social and socialization backgrounds. Their behaviors are influenced by the values of their national and educational reference cultures (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Multinationals develop different models to emphasize certain corporate values to standardize, centralize and simplify some practices in order to be able to steer and manage their international workforce (Simons et al., 1993). Different organization types are developed along the strategy and decision-making concepts, which finally determine the organizational structures and processes. Scholars and consultants attempt to classify organization types along cultural features (see table 5.1) to explain the related strategy and the decision-making legitimation.


trans-cultural transformation the learning ability and the ambition to cross boundaries and constraints are emphasized. Mutual interactions and cooperative exchanges are necessary to synergize words and deeds for a common survival for everybody concerned. In regard to transcultural leadership, we focus less on cultural characteristics but more on the competences providing the leadership required to ride on the waves of global diversification and greater mobility without losing sight of “the promised land.”


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

122


Table 5.1 Organization Types Interventionist

Interactive

Independent

Organization

Ethnocentric

Ethnocentric

Geocentric

Polycentric

Structure

Steep hierarchy

Flat hierarchy

Network

Federation

Strategy

Dictated

Centrally decided

Jointly specified

Locally specified

Decisionmaking

Centralized

Distributed

Shared

Devolved

Source: Rugman, Alan M. & Simon Collinson (2006). International Business. Essex, Pearson, p. 145.

The classification of organization types exemplifies the differentiation while allowing standardization, thus the constitution of corporate culture. In globalization, culture is still the most subtle aspect of organization to play a role in helping or hindering a local and a global development (Bennholdt-Thomsen and von Werlhof, 2001; Funakawa, 1997). In strategy management culture has been a strong implicit instrument of power used to influence basic assumptions, to steer and control the direction and outcomes of the companies as well as of those groups affected by organizations’ strategies and activities. Behind each organization there are traditions, political and cultural orientations specific to a country with its history of expansion of power and influence (Earle, 2008; Plattner, 1989). Funakawa pointed out that “culture and business are seamlessly united. We can see culture in business and business in culture” (1997:15). In that sense, cultural influences and economic power asymmetries are open to critique and change. Economics as part of historical and political power cannot refrain from other responsibilities, at either local or global dimensions. Many classifications of organizational development go back to Perlmutter’s three typologies of cultural strategy:


Imperialist

Ethnocentric firms are where top management is dominated by home-country nationals, and procedures and management styles are transferred from the head office and imposed on regional subsidiaries in place of local ways of doing things. ●

Polycentric firms tend to act like a federation of semi-autonomous organizations with financial controls or strict reporting structures

●


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM


123

holding them together. Subsidiaries are able to reflect the local cultural norms, and headquarters appreciates the need for different organization designs, procedural norms, reward systems, etc., as long as profits flow to the center. Geocentric firms are seen as the ideal, collaborative, and meritocratic form of global organization (...) An equal sharing of power and responsibility between headquarters and subsidiary; senior management promoted according to ability rather than nationality; subsidiaries that share worldwide objectives with managers focusing beyond national market interests. (Cited by Rugman and Collinson, 2006:145) Deresky (2003) added to Perlmutter’s typologies the global aspect, and expanded the concept further to outline how the type organizational orientation conceptualizes human resource management as well as the staffing and training programs (see table 5.2). These typologies are applicable not just in business fields for the strategic mode. In social, educational and sociopolitical fields, for example,

Table 5.2 Relationships among Strategic Mode, Organizational Variables and Staffing Orientation Aspects of the enterprise

Orientation Ethnocentric

Polycentric

Regiocentric

Global

Primary strategic orientation/stage

International

Multidomestic

Regional

Transnational

Perpetuation (recruiting, staffing, development)

People of home country developed for key postitions everywhere in the world

People of local nationality developed for key positions in their own country

Regional people developed for key positions everywhere in the region

Best people everywhere in the world developed for key positions everywhere in the world

Complexity of organization

Complex in home country, simple in subsidiaries

Varied and independent

Highly interdependent on a regional basis

“Global Web”: complex, independent, worldwide alliances/ network


●

Continued


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

124 Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation Table 5.2 Continued Orientation

Aspects of the enterprise

Ethnocentric

Polycentric

Authority; decision making

High in headquarters

Relatively low in High regional headquarters headquarters and/or high collaboration among subsidiaries

Collaboration of headquarters and subsdiaries around the world

Evaluation and control

Home standards applied to people and performance

Determined locally

Determined regionally

Globally integrated

Rewards

High in headquarters; low in subsidiaries

Wide location; can be high or low rewards for subsidiary performance

Rewards for contribution to regional objectives

Rewards to international and local executives for reaching local and

Communication; information flow

High volume of orders, commands, advice to subsidiaries

Little to and from headquarters; little among subsidiaries

Little to and from corporate headquarters, but may be high to and from regional headquarters and among countries

Horizontal; network relations

Geographic identification

Nationality of owner

Regional company

Truly global company, but identifying with national interests (“global”)

Global

Source: Deresky, Helen (2003) International Management. Managing Across Borders and Cultures. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. p. 394.


Nationality of host country

Regiocentric

of development aid, one observes some characteristics of ethno-, poly-, or geo-centrism in organizational relationships. The ascription of criteria depends on the perception of whether they come from within or from outside the organization. According to Rugman and Collinson (2006), the relationships between managers and staff in ethnocentric organizations are characterized with either


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

125

deep or flat hierarchy, thus the strategy is centrally decided. The geocentric organizations show more of a network structure; the strategy is jointly specified. In geocentric organizations knowledge of the benefits of cultural diversity is perceived as being important for the understanding of local business practices. Unilever is an example of geocentric orientation in their organizational structure. In addition to Perlmutter’s categories of ethno-, poly-, and regio- (or geo-) centric systems, Deresky (2003) introduced global orientation. The global management approach presumes that best managers should be recruited regardless of nationality and of whether they are from within or outside the company. She believed that the global approach would provide several advantages, as the best persons are found for the key positions. According to her observation, best managers from third countries usually bring more cultural flexibility and adaptability as well as multilingual skills. Their appointments are well accepted by headquarters as well as by local managers. She pointed out that the skills and experiences of the best managers result in a pool of shared learning used and transferred throughout the company. Within this context, one should ask, what does “best” or “excellence” as something taken for granted and universal imply, based on what expectations and ambitions, created in which historical and socio-cultural context, by which “social classes”? In spite of global diversification, the global economic world is exerted by a dominant group having not only economic, but including political, thus ideological and cultural power. Accordingly, we can use Gramsci’s (1971) concept of cultural hegemony which refers to the ability of dominant social classes to cultivate, not necessarily through force or violence but through non-coercive practices and discourses, a “way of life” that naturalized their leading socio-cultural positions and made their cultural influences and structural organization appear to serve the interests of all other groups. Their “way of life” becomes universal to which many marginalized cultures have been submitted. The hegemony of the worldview and world-order gets confirmed and attributed as “universal” and worth adopting. Thence, subordinate states, societies, or organizations give “unwilling consent” or “voluntary consent” to the imposed logic appearing standards and concept of the direction of development. In other words, many transnational organizations consider themselves in reference to their designation global; however, at the core the basic assumptions are still ethnocentric, in the sense of substituting the hegemony of a dominant group, which defines the dominant or reference culture. Shortly, criteria, such as “best,” “excellent,” “efficient,” “optimum,” “valuable,” and so forth, refer to semantic




10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

fields and to standards defined set up by the reference culture which predominates over others, thus has taken over “hegemon” or cultural leadership (Said, 1995; and see Section 5.1). By contrast, predicates such as flexibility, adaptability, and the ability of sharing experiences and of learning are hardly bound to any national or cultural standards; they are traits and qualities defining an acquisition process of natural human development. However, acceptance of meaning and sense provided by the leading person or organization presupposes trust and confidence given by the environment and the members. Hence, how interrelated are trust and confidence to the sympathy given by the environment, and to the charisma of a personality? Are our judgments not often influenced by past experiences and cultural prejudices? The appointed manager might be an integrative, reliable, fair, trustworthy person with all required beneficial traits and qualities. Furthermore, attributions are associated not merely affectively, but also cognitively with meanings, which again are culturally shaped. The interpretations of the leaders’ representation respond to social arrangements and experiences. It might be that the leaders have positive traits and qualities, but the environment in which they are interacting has had some negative experiences in the past with the sending organization or with the nation the managers come from. These experiences must not result in traceable consequences that managers in an environment of resistance are determined to fail. They may reckon to invest more time and be sensitive in their communication so as to establish a solid foundation of confidence and trust. Self-interest coming from either the manager or the establishing organization would be the wrong strategic decision in an environment of tension and mistrust. Under these circumstances, leaders are well advised to overcome conventional guidelines, and develop high self-reflection, not just to understand the situation, but to become understanding of what is happening around them in order to take adaptive actions. Finding a balance of trust and confidence in an environment of multicultural differences and dissonance is a challenge. Therefore, several pieces of research have been conducted to find out the appropriate leadership style promising the best performance in international fields. However, controversial descriptions cause more irritation so that different preferences for leadership style are suggested according to the multitude of cultures (Connerley and Pedersen, 2005). For example, Hofstede would probably suggest that in the individualistic, low power distance cultures, such as Sweden, the participative leadership style would meet the employees’ needs.




10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

127

In international management different leadership styles complying with the national cultures of the environment are generally suggested (Rugman and Collinson, 2006). Following Hofstede‘s model, some researchers agree that in collectivist, high power distance cultures, for example in Japan, authoritarian leadership has a positive impact on employees. Here, we might think, in a collectivist society, where the individual acts in accordance with collective recognition, the relationship-oriented behavior would be the right way. As task-orientation includes factual, issue, and contract related interactions; individual success is considered as personal achievement and reward. Interestingly, counterexamples are cited that in collectivist and high power distance culture leaders must be task-oriented. For example, as McFarlin and Sweeney (2005) described, Japanese managers have authoritarian style, and focus on task. However, they went further with the observation by saying that Japanese managers balance criticism with plenty of supportive behaviors. They continued to make another observation concerning what happens when American subordinates are exposed to Japanese leadership in the United States, and mentioned: In one study, Japanese managers had less impact on American than Japanese subordinates and had less influence overall than American supervisors. However, American subordinates performed better when a Japanese supervisor was friendly and supportive but worse when an American supervisor did basically the same thing. So supervisors’ nationalities may affect how their behavior is interpreted by subordinates. Friendliness by an American supervisor may imply weakness, while the same behavior from a Japanese supervisor may be seen as a desire to get things done. But can different leader behaviors have the same positive effects across cultural contexts? (McFarlin and Sweeney, 2005:367) Obviously, there’s no simple answer for diverse observations with diverging explanations. Quite often participative leadership style is argued to be in general more effective and democracy is considered as the highest achievement of leadership performance. On the contrary, we observe that participation and democracy provided by leadership are possible in an environment where people feel safe while sharing, discussing and reflecting on their opinions and actions. The organization and environment provide certain favorable learning attitudes. Still, we do still have some problems of interpretation and definition. Do all systems understand the same thing and behave in the same way, when terms such as participative, democratic, or relationship-oriented are in use? When relationship-oriented behavior includes the leader’s concern for subordinates’ feelings, needs, and well-being, as well as embracing




10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM


empathy, encouragement, consideration, and trust to subordinates, why can a Japanese or an American manager not be relationship-oriented and at the same time task-oriented, in the sense of giving clear tasks to complete? The assumption that, for example, authoritative leadership would be responded to better in France, Spain, and Mexico than in Denmark and United States (Rodriges, cited by Connerley and Pedersen, 2005) might simplify managers’ lives, how to manage and lead abroad. But this assumption ignores the fact that we might also find authoritarian behaviors in Denmark and United States, as we presuppose participative behavior to be their typical and general behavior. There are different ways in which authoritarian behaviors can be expressed. The application of notions without contextualization of the interpretation sustains national labeling and keeps alive prejudices. Participation and democracy are not attributes simply reduced to national labels; this would ignore historical and anthropological research of different tribes and societies exercising different forms of participation and democracy, before any concept of democracy is introduced or imposed by the Western societies. Ascription to national characteristics hardens normative expectations and is not always beneficial or productive, as we can see in the example of the Japanese and American supervisors in the United States. How would it be when the American supervisor was brought up in the United States, but he has been interested in Japanese culture since childhood? Do people in times of globalization and of multi-optional society not have the choice of many cultural preferences, values, tastes, and finally can they develop a combination of different styles and orientations suitable to achieve their goals? To relate leadership styles to national preferences reduces the dynamics of culture to the static notion of the container paradigm. Furthermore, none of the national paradigm would represent the guiding standard system superior to the others. However, what countries have in common nowadays are transnational movements affecting national boundaries and global challenges forcing companies and states to go beyond states’ regulation but to find solutions on a global level. The complexity of globalization cannot be solved just on local, regional, and national interests. The resulting dilemmas call upon new-paradigm leadership demonstrating the willingness to take the risk of uncertainties as the turning point of giving the direction against disorientation and consequently of changing the perception and direction in order not to become biased in different discourses and in the current undebatable dominance of a risk–cost–benefit analysis culture. Deconstruction of old patterns and the introduction of deregulations require not merely


128


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM


129

“In an exploitative authoritative (System 1) organization, decision making is confined to upper management, communication is topdown, and punishments are used to motivate. A benevolent authoritative (System 2) organization is also autocratic. However, managers are more paternalistic, are interested in employees’ needs, and may give employees limited decision-making freedom. In a consultative (System 3) organization, employees are even more involved in communicating, decision making, and working with mangers. Still, management usually reserves the right to make the final decision. Finally, the democratic (System 4) organization involves employees heavily in decision making in everything from problem solving to setting performance goals. Supervisors are supportive, the use of teams is widespread, and employees communicate laterally as well as vertically.” (Cited by McFarlin and Sweeney, 2005:367) In conclusion, Likert suggested that all companies should move toward System 3 and 4 leadership no matter which level they are operating on. He believed that a participative style would lead to results in the highest performance and morale. I do agree with Likert with the presumption that consultative and democratic systems need certain learning habits (behavioral pattern) from the organization to enhance a consultative and democratic environment. Even so, much depends on the leaders. On the other hand, certain leadership conceptualization emerges in a certain cultural context. Knowing this, leaders are advised to know their personal preferences of interaction style and the resulting weaknesses first, then observe how open and adaptive the organizations they work for are for consultative and democratic leadership; only then might they do their best to enable the organization to achieve that stage of capability as a goal. Other scholars and experts argue that leadership styles cannot be clearly differentiated and attributed to specific situations (Scholtes,


risk awareness of leadership, but also a sophisticated risk management accounting for complex challenges of the risk society (Beck, 1986). Within this context, risk is an uncertain future in a global society of increasing disorientations. In time of crises and ambiguities security and safety must be conveyed by leadership ensuring trust that can be achieved and maintained. Instead of the correlation of leadership styles with national preferences, Likert proposed a set of four basic systems of leadership:


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

1998). They suggest a continuum of leadership behavior providing flexibility from authoritarian (authority-centered) to participative (subordinate-centered) leadership application (see figure 5.1). The continuum of behavior is situational and depends on the level as well as on the composition of the members, which requires sensitivity of adjustment of leadership to match the strengths and weaknesses of the members. For example, on the organizational level, leaders might use authoritarian credibility to make decisions for the organizational well-being as a whole, whereas on the group’s or division’s level they are more flexible and delegate decision competence according to circumstances and requirements. On the individual level they promote confidence and adjust to individuals’ needs of “autonomy.” Here the variability of behaviors is high, as it treats individuals as autonomous entities with different needs, capacities, and abilities, whereas on the groups’ level the importance of social interaction among them is stimulated to create an atmosphere of collective positive experiences which finally support the collective identification with the corporate culture. To anticipate disorientation, dysfunctional communication and mistrust, the leader’s regular presence, thus sensitive guidance and flexible interventions are expected. In sum, there is not one culturally determined leadership style which is universally effective, even though leaders in multicultural or international

low variability

Subordinates’ oriented leadership high variability

Authority centered leadership Manager’s authority orientation

Subordinates’ involvement orientation intervention Manager makes decision and announces it

Manager “sells” decision

Manager presents ideas and invites questions

Manager presents tentative decision subject to change

Manager presents problems, gets suggestions, makes decision

Manager defines limits; asks group to make decision

Manager permits subordinates to function within limits defined by superior



Organization as the reference culture

collective – group

individual needs

Figure 5.1

The Continuum of Leadership Behavior


10/5/2010 12:41:01 PM

131

environments are advised to adapt their leadership style to cultural expectations in specific countries, and to learn to use different combination of styles. They still have to be aware of their normative cultural backgrounds, the different interpretation fields, and the danger of collective ascriptions, of how their behaviors are understood by others. On the other hand, it would be unwise to believe that if one is a good manager in one place, one can act the same way everywhere and succeed. Good leaders always have to adjust their behaviors continuously based on reflective observation and action, as circumstances are in constant change, and situations are always perceived and understood differently. Situations and the people involved keep changing, which in turn affect different appeals of leadership behaviors. Although the proposed continuum of leadership behavior goes well with the concept of trans-cultural leadership, as it assures a close fit between individual and collective needs and situative contents, due to its flexible and fluid nature it is somehow difficult to reduce the concept on formal theoretical grounds. In fact, trans-cultural leadership is a process and cannot be determined by a reduction of static conceptualization. As the name suggests, trans-cultural leadership is a concept in constant cultural adaptation and transformation. Reflection and discussion issues Discuss this quote and the following questions with your colleagues, and develop conclusions with them: “Leaders who are more emotionally intelligent are more likely to find developing multicultural skills easier compared to leaders who score lower on emotional intelligence. Also leaders who are more aware of their own learning styles can better attend to the choices they make during the learning process. This information can also be used to help leaders step outside of the comfort zone of their learning style to help them see situations from other perspectives.” (Connerley and Pedersen, 2005:66) ●

●

●

Discuss what emotional intelligence means and implies in the context of multicultural environments in which people of different cultural and national backgrounds are working and living together. Describe behavioral qualities that you think would be beneficial to lead a multicultural group. Explain why leaders should be aware of their preferences of learning styles. What kind of impacts do their learning styles have on leadership styles? What are the correlations? Find out the advantages of reflecting and analyzing a problem from different perspectives. Discuss as well the conflicts and dilemmas one might get from looking at a problem from different points of view. What is your suggestion as to how leaders should make decisions in situations of dilemmas? What would you perceive as relevant action for leaders to maintain the image of credibility and accountability?




10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM


●

●

●

5.2

Connerley, Mary L. & Paul B. Pedersen (2005). Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment. Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. London, Sage. Goleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, Bantam. Sue, D.W., Carter, R.T., Casas J.M., Fouad, N.A., Ivey, A.E.,,Jensen, M. et al. (1998) Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Individual and Organizational Development. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

The concept of trans-culture

As defined in Chapter 2, culture is neither a homogeneous nor a closed static unity (container paradigm). Even when we talk about culture, it seems to be static. However, within a given society culture often changes over time. Culture is an open dynamic system emerging from structural determinants, but evolving constantly. The directions of change have effects and consequences of structural transformation at the same time. The concept of culture as a dynamic phenomenon is not new; however, the term “transculture” has been used only for the past twenty-five years or so and assumes that cultures emerge and change through the dynamics and complexity especially caused by increasing mobility and globalization (Funakawa, 1997; Welsch, 1999; Dornheim, 2001; Sandkühler, 2004). Welsch defined the transculturality as follows: “Transculturality is, in the first place, a consequence of the inner differentiation and complexity of modern cultures. These encompass – as I explained before – a number of ways of life and cultures, which also interpenetrate or emerge from one another (...) Cultures today are extremely interconnected and entangled with each other. Lifestyles no longer end at the borders of national cultures, but go beyond these, are found in the same way in other cultures (...) Transculturality is gaining ground moreover not only on the macrocultural level, but also on the individual’s micro-level. For most of us, multiple cultural connexions are decisive in terms of our cultural formation. We are cultural hybrids.” (1999: 4–5) Culture is a social construct, and so is the notion of transculture introduced by Welsch. It is a product as well as the production of the meaning-making processes in which the collectives define in discourses the reality they want to see, understand, and give a name. In this regard, the histories of the notion culture reflect the processes of discursive negotiation – consciously and unconsciously – between the definition


Further reading


10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

133

groups how culture should be interpreted and instrumentalized for the construction of reality (Gramsci, 1971; Said, 1995; and see Section 5.1). The concept of trans-culture used in the title trans-cultural leadership derives from the concept transculture discussed by Welsch and stresses the flexible semantic field. It tries to go beyond the scope of the container paradigm. Within this concept, culture is only perceived as passively volatile and fluid and gets actively dispersed through space and over time. It undergoes changes visibly and invisibly. The semantic field alters and substitutes according to the context in which the discourse takes place. For example, definitions such as “best outcomes,” “excellent performance,” are in reference to a certain cultural system, generally to the dominant culture defining the current reference standards. Consequently, leaders have to be aware of their taken-for-granted basic assumptions, especially when they are from the dominant culture. Belonging to the top of a society, of a nation, or of an organization implies the membership of that reference culture. The reference culture represents the hegemonic dominance, which makes the reference culture appear not as a cultural construct, but as the reality for all. It is the norm, thus inevitably normal (Gramsci, 1971). Therefore, it requires high self-reflection where we get our cultural frame or eye glasses from in order to be able to step outside of a dominant discursive formation that has been taken as natural and universal and so that we can recognize our cultural blind spot. Even then, it is difficult to acknowledge that there are other ways of perception acceptable outside of one’s world while being still biased in one’s own cultural trap. Moreover, stepping outside one’s discourse of what should be challenges one’s own capability of going beyond one’s own system which has been taken for normal, universal, “hegemon” leading, and therefore applicable for all others. Schein’s (2004) suggestion that all managers should “travel more” is, in fact, over-simplified and leaves out the aspect of the asymmetric power issue, which defines what culture is dominant, and what is marginalized. Surely, leaders should make the experiences of being confronted with different, opposite or irritating situations and cultural systems. Instead, confrontation with other systems should not merely make leaders aware of their possible current cultural blind spot, but further awaken them from their hegemonic dominance and taken-for-granted culture. They may dwell upon the question of whether their leading standards or hegemonic culture can be applied everywhere. What reactions in the sense of resistance, commitment, and identification will they experience from those being marginalized? What can they change to gain trust and confidence? And finally what can they let go when some results do not meet what they have expected? This




10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

awareness requires high critical introspection, and the ability to overcome the internalized dominant orientation and to accept that things can run differently. The reflection on cultural power asymmetries may give insight for behavioral patterns to take measures of anticipating actions, and less for justifying them or for preventing counter-cultural reactions, but more for giving a new direction for change. In addition, knowing that one might have the preference of an authoritarian leadership style, one should be sensitive that such leadership style does not always meet the needs of the people with whom one will work, either in the culture one grows up in or elsewhere. The preference of an authoritarian leadership style must not immediately result from national identity, but from personal experiences and associations with it throughout one’s lifetime. Much depends on people’s past experiences and thus on the expectations of the environment in which one interacts as a leader. Some environments might be used to the authoritarian leadership style; however, based on past experience, they might be mistrustful of authoritarian systems. Hence, it is a paradox to use the authoritarian style by not being authoritarian. On the other hand, for certain environments and in certain organizations the participative or democratic leadership style might be well accepted. Here also, leaders have to be aware that their leadership style has to be modified not only relating to environmental change, but also relating to what they feel they are comfortable with. Trying to be authoritarian in the way one has learned what it should be, but that seems inconvenient to oneself, does not contribute to more authenticity conveying more integrity. It would make a leader more artificial and less trustworthy. Consequently, leaders’ behaviors have to get transformed from the inside out, and not just be adapted according to environmental experiences. To sum up, the concept of “trans-culture” that I use here emphasizes “trans-” in reference to transformation from within first through interactions with others. “Trans-culture” is the passive and active aspects of dispersion and diffusion of culture. It goes beyond cultural frames and borders, without becoming homogenizing on the global level, but still integrates diversity in the sense of recognition of differentiation for the self-reflection and self-transformation. In this way trans-culture differs from the concept of the container paradigm (see Section 2.2) and from managing diversity (see Sections 2.4 and 3.3). Trans-cultural strategies and solutions are therefore not simply the adaptation to the environment of diversity, but by being “trans-” the process of going beyond one’s boundaries through exchanging, sharing, and shaping the meaning of




10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

135

the environment is created actively on the level of self-reflection and of reflection with others. In this way, a “new” culture can evolve through interrelationships from within to outside and vice versa. The concept of “trans-culture” requires and enforces the linking of many cultural “pieces” (perspectives) to make an integrated web of meanings. This process involves different people in the creation of a “new” or “innovative” culture. The holistic approach includes, besides the cognitive dimensions, the affective, and the behavioral aspects of creativity. The creation of common meanings requires from leaders high sensitivity of the many basic assumptions, and the implicated symmetric and asymmetric power relation in order to handle the process of the synthesis of a common vision based on common experiences, and hence social attachment. A common language, codes, or communication, thus a common understanding must be developed. Trans-cultural action is not focused on cultural particularities, but on cultural cohesion due to collective experience of transformation. Consequently, the quality of team spirit depends on the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinates as well as between the subordinates among themselves. To develop solid relationship is challenging, but necessary to enhance trust and a flexible learning environment, which finally encourages stakeholders in commitment to more social responsibility and to common “construction” of a new reality. As explained above, trans-culture is not fixed to a particular culture. To develop trans-cultural spirit for goal achievement, the process is not different from any teambuilding process. The following model applied by Raynolds et al. (2007) in leadership as an outward way is my suggestion of how to lead people of different backgrounds toward a transformation for trans-culture. In the core we have managing the self, and the process starts with: Setting direction: “Every organization needs to have its mission, vision, and values established, and everyone looks to the company leaders to either deliver that vision, and values established, and everyone looks to the company leaders to either deliver that vision or facilitate the process of generating it collectively ...”

●



● Gaining commitment: “Leaders don’t make people do what the leader wants; they make people want to do what the leader wants, and feel valued for doing it. When people talk about what energizes them about a good company, they generally rave about the company’s people and, more specifically, about the values of the people. There has to be a fit between the values of the organization and the individual. That fit


10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM


is easier to accomplish if the values are clear and the company’s actions match the company’s words.” Delivering results: “Set incremental goals and meet them. Deliver measurable results. What you measure is what people will put the most effort into, so make sure you’re measuring the right things. Vision is necessary, but it’s also important to set a plan and manage it. Make sure there’s follow-through on commitments, and check in on results. Focus on results, provide feedback, and monitor progress.”

● Building relationships: “Investing your time and developing an awareness of yourself and others builds relationships and can have tremendous payoff in the form of committed employees, suppliers, and customers. People like to do business with people they trust and will even pay more for a service or product knowing that you are there to take care of them when needed. Build consensus, collaborate effectively, and provide support.”

Establishing credibility: “Having a strong moral compass, following through, and being good at what you do – not just being the expert – are all part of establishing credibility. (...) Don’t forget that you can also establish credibility if you are quick to acknowledge when you don’t have the answer. Bringing in other expertise to assist you isn’t an admission of incompetence (...) Gain respect, think innovatively, and develop trust.” ●

● Encouraging growth: “Are you taking interest in developing your people? (...) Empower others, support learning, and demonstrate appreciation.”

Managing self: “Knowing and sharing your own strengths and weaknesses is a precept to leading others. A leader can create a supportive environment by modeling the need for support as well as a selfreliant approach to getting support in a timely and appropriate manner. (...) Be persistent and reliable.” (Raynolds et al., 2007:233–234)

●

These steps are necessary to overcoming cultural differences and power asymmetries, furthermore to enhancing social cohesion as a major component of difference and conflict transformation. The collective commitment detaches individuals from their personal point of view and facilitates the process of finding trans-cultural responses in collective agreement. Recognizing the importance of diversity and interdependencies as a resource for finding new solutions for change within and outside themselves, trans-cultural process becomes transformational for the person involved and for the group or community. In


●


10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

137

this way, the concept of trans-culture - rather a combination of transformation and culture, differs from the hitherto used concept of transculture mostly related to transnational conceptualization. The concept of trans-culture questions the global homogenizing processes and emphasis the necessity of carrying out reflective discourses on asymmetric power relations and incorporated alienation (see Sections 4.1 and 4.2). Trans-cultural transformation is more unifying, in the sense of ending differences and disparities based on sensitive dialogue about power asymmetries and exclusion to produce a different type of “hegemonic” leadership of cultural change. To conclude, the achievement of transcultural spirit is conflict, thus risk and uncertainties transformation. Trans-cultural transformation is not the resurrection of old hegemonic patterns, but by reflecting profound knowledge the collective produce different types of knowledge. This experience collates people’s activities and produces at the same time new types of knowledge consisting of a new value system and defines the direction of actions.


●

●

Explain the correlation between the culture’s phenomena of volatility and dynamics and the difficulty of the definition of the notion culture. Explain the difference between transculturality or transculture and transculture. Explain the reasons and purposes of teambuilding for trans-cultural processes.


●

●

●

What are pros and cons of stepping outside of the dominant discursive formation? Is it possible to live in a world without any hegemonic culture, thus any leadership, finally any cultural and organizational formation? In what hegemonic culture(s) do you think we live now? Hegemonic culture can be understood as cultural leadership. Culture and power are interrelated with each other. Discuss the differences between power over, power with, and power for and how these differences are expressed structurally and behaviorally. Then describe the principles you would suggest for trans-cultural leadership in value creation and the needs of social responsibility (see Section 4.5). To what extent would you agree with the differentiation between transculture and trans-culture?




10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM


●

●

Make a correlation between production of knowledge and dominant discursive formation of culture, then conclude what role, function, and position leadership should take within these processes. I say, it is against the concept of trans-culture to define what trans- culture is as trans-culture evolves in the invitation of people joining in the shared reflection and social activities while experiencing trans-culture. Explore discussions and concepts on trans-culture you can find in popular and scientific discourses. Develop your own arguments of points and counterpoints.

Further reading ●

●

5.3

Welsch, Wolfgang (1999). “Transculturality – the Puzzling Form of Cultures Today,” in Featherstone, M. & S. Lash (eds), Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. London, Sage [online]. Available at www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/. Epstein, Mikhail (2009). “Transculture,” in American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 68, No 1, 327–351.

Trans-cultural leadership

In Sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.5, and 4.4, we have derived from different contexts and settings some characteristics and criteria for the leadership continuum in changing and challenging environments. In reference to Section 1.2, I would like to recall why trans-cultural leadership is considered as the new approach of leadership to preparing and guiding people and organizations to and through challenges in a time of rapid change and disorientation, of interdependence with different effects and consequences due to increasing competition and power asymmetries (see Sections 2.1, 4.1, and 5.1). The term “trans-culture“ takes the effects and consequences of globalization into account (see Section 5.2). In Sections 3.1 and 3.5, we imply that trans-cultural leadership has some aspects of transformational leadership (affective charisma, inspirational and intellectual stimulation, and motivation skills) and of path-goal or situational leadership (directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented) with focused accentuation on learning ability and cultural awareness (see Sections 2.5, 3.1, and 4.4). However, as critically pointed out above, one has to be specific with the application of notions in different situations. What does directive or participative mean in a context such as transformation in multicultural settings (see Section 5.1)? “Directive implies” meanings such as




10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

139

giving clear direction and still involving diversity as a resource for new ideas and solutions. Directive leadership style enables followers to collaborate and cooperate, and due to promoting direction and structure it provides at the same time security (see Section 3.1.2). However, involving diversity or applying participative aspects of leadership does not say much about the method of participation or about the decision-making process. Respecting diversity does not necessarily lead to reflection about taken-for-granted cultural construction of reality or of “truth,” or about power asymmetries and “hegemonic leadership,” thus about the instrumentalization or about the sense of meaning-creation with “cultural transformation.” For instance, to create common meaning, one shares experiences first. By observing, asking, telling, “selling,” and sharing stories, discussing and working together in small tasks, the seed of sharing is created and thus the foundation of trust of soliciting opinions among each other (Driskill and Brenton, 2005; Keyton, 2005). Deriving from previous chapters on culture, I summarize how transcultural leadership is described so far in reference to the general four components of leadership: 1. Having the profound knowledge (of situation and context) about how culture and leadership are interrelated, and how cultures shape organizations, worldviews and problem-defining and problem-solving habits, trans-cultural leaders gain the ability to step outside of their system to awaken and increase awareness. 2. Being a model of going beyond one’s anxieties and potential they can lead others through learning processes of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions to help others to become leaders for transcultural transformation. 3. Taking leadership means using and gaining power and defining the culture of survival, thus trans-cultural leaders reflect their influences of their power with, for and over others during the unending journey while leading others toward transformation at the individual, team, and organizational/community levels.



4. In order to make their vision come true, leaders need competences and skills to apply different strategies and approaches that encompass transformation in order to impact themselves as leaders, but also others as followers, and the environment at large. The concept of trans-cultural leadership integrates various theories and concepts in progress. Trans-cultural leaders are primarily


10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM

140


Phase 1 – Person: Trans-cultural leaders have “four eyes“ (compare the four Is of transformational leadership; see Section 3.2) and are anchored in emotional resilience. Provided with these qualities, they develop high self- and cultural awareness, and furthermore, a profound self-reflective insight. This allows them to open their mind and heart in order to analyze the context and the environment where they are acting. They are sensitive to power asymmetries and resistance. Their profound knowledge and systems thinking enable them to become active sense and meaning creators. In other words they are proactive in giving the direction of the discursive formation of transformation.

Power

5 power–person trans-cultural transformation Purpose

perspectives–purposes sustainable survival

3

2

person– power self-mastery

Person

Perspectives

practices–power synergy

1 purpose– practices continual improvement

4


transformational learners of trans-cultural leadership. They are balancing the five Ps on their way of transformation and continual acquisition of competencies differentiated in five ongoing development phases, where the beginning is also the ending (see figure 5.2). The five Ps are: person, power, practices, purpose, and perspectives.

Practices

Figure 5.2 Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation


10/5/2010 12:41:02 PM


141

In order to lead others by being understanding others, leaders have to get a deep insight of themselves first: Who they are – their backgrounds, cognitive, affective, and behavioral preferences, the power and influences of the system where they are living and working. They know about their learning abilities and disabilities. They are aware of their needs, dreams, hopes, but also of their anxieties, limits, weaknesses. How they are – their influences (power), effects and restraints on others and on the environment (including the awareness of the risk of ascription and the heteronymous dynamics).

●

What they want – the fundamental meaning and sense they want to give roots in their being and doing to fulfill tasks and missions

●

Where they want to go – the vision, the ethical and aesthetical aspects they wish for their direction.

●

Cultural awareness does not merely embrace the personal reflective insight of the self. It includes also the systemic analytical view of power relations, the hidden hegemony, the difficulty of locating dynamic power asymmetries, and the resulting ethical dilemma. Leaders understand how a system (e.g. culture) is composed and decomposed, how different elements are interdependent and interrelated, how challenging it is to distinguish causes from consequences. As described above, one incidence has different effects on other elements and on the whole, which makes a situation difficult and complex. Above sensing the complexity of a system or of a situation knowing one’s own abilities and limits makes the leaders aware of the many possibilities of outcomes of one action. Their insight sharpens their vision and foresight. The high self-reflective insight and self-awareness strengthen their emotional resilience and security to accept that they can lose control over the complexity. However, their conscientiousness and integrity support them to move on with the unknown and unpredictable incidences without losing sight of the shores where they are sailing to (see Section 3.4). Moreover, by knowing where they come from, they can define where they don’t want to go, and where they want to be in the future. Only by giving themselves “anchoring” meaning and direction are they able to lead others in finding their meaning and direction. The ability of self-insight is the basic requirement for conscious competence and the development of “conscientization” (see Section 5.4).


●


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM


Phase 2 – Perspectives: Achieving deep self-insight, leaders recognize that it is not merely a question of courage or of overcoming anxieties, but more a question of social responsibility for a meaningful life quality. In this sense they open up their minds to go through the experiences of “unlearning,” while being a sensitive interactor with different realities and interest groups. This experience permits them to develop new competencies and abilities to provide their followers and communities new perspectives in the search for sustainable survival. Understanding why people behave as they do, their learning abilities and disabilities should not remain on the cognitive level. An organization in transition is always in a delicate situation: uncertainty and anxiety let people cling to their old internalized patterns. Behaviors can only change when there are some motivations and hopes. An organization is basically a web of relationships. In transition leaders take care that the web of relationships does not fall apart due to disorientation, disagreement, and thus conflict. Considering the maintenance of the web, leaders enhance at the same time the continuous weaving of a new design, by providing feelings of attachment and bonding among the followers. Based on their experiences of going through transformation, leaders know what are relevant in these situations, and are somehow prepared: they give hopes and meanings in achievable steps. Being transformational is more than just being flexible or acting adaptively to new or changing situations. Being transformational includes the awareness of the need of change and the willingness to leave behind patterns that are dysfunctional or prevent an organization from growing and improving. The opportunity for change is the turning point of survival. This process is painful for everybody involved. Leaders convey feelings of safety by admitting that being not in full control is not a sign of weakness or of failure but of inner safety to be able to take on an unending challenging journey as long as people do not lose trust, confidence, and faith. Not knowing the answer in advance they accept trial-and-error as a challenge of the process of growth. This ability is the quality of resilience. Being consistent in their self-confidence, leaders can therefore be supportive of the learning efforts of others in the process of unlearning, while ensuring them hope on different perspectives. Unlearning is frustrating, when the reason or motivation is not related to the realization of a clear vision. Giving clear, consistent and intense meaning and direction in the turbulent process of unlearning is essential. Accordingly, trans-cultural leaders give among possible orientations still one core vision and one core orientation that come from the deepest needs and persuasion (see Section 4.2).


142


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM

143

Phase 3 – Purpose: The sensitivity of mental and emotional strength to manage one’s own transformational process prepares leaders with skills and abilities to involve, motivate, and support others, individuals, groups, organizations, and communities in the process of “unlearning and learning” to join and balance the pain and risks of the challenges of change. In other words, the purpose is to break frames in order to go beyond boundaries, while still being rooted and attached. So the learning outcome is not the product or service, which the organization or the community is committed to producing, but the learning outcome is continual improvement of life quality. The way is the goal; within this context leaders are modeling the way from the reason to be to the reason to be more. According to Schein, “leadership requires not only insight into the dynamics of the culture but also the motivation and skill to intervene in one’s own cultural process. To change any elements of the culture, leaders must be willing to unfreeze their own organization. Unfreezing requires disconfirmation, a process that is inevitably painful for many” (2004:415). Going beyond self-interest leaders show high commitment and dedication to the group and organization. By doing so, they are modeling the way of facing the risk as a chance to move on, to grow and to develop an aesthetically and ethically meaningful future that they still have to shape. Not only having high self-confidence and being visionary, but also developing a pragmatic strategy of stabilization means they can transmit to their members the feelings of safety and security in situations of uncertainties. According to Schein (2004) and from Section 4.3, when the anxiety of unlearning is less than the anxiety of survival the motivation for change is aroused. Under these circumstances risk seems less threatening, as the focus in discontinuous change is less on discontinuity, but more on change. Using metaphor we may start with SaintExupéry’s famous advice of selling vision: “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” People have to change their perspective to perceive risk as a chance. John Shedd said, “a ship in harbor is safe – but that is not what ships are built for.” When taking the risk to go to sea makes sense, we need a ship, and above all a courageous captain knowing the direction even in tempests. Leaders have always been constantly weighing the risks associated with any particular course of action. The difference is that in times of high volatility and mobility the course of actions is getting more short-term. Still Raynolds et al. suggested, “Sometimes taking a risk is less about assessing the objective hazards of the risk and more about simply being




10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM


willing to fail (...) If you find that you’re rationalizing a lot with yourself and coming up with many, many reasons why you shouldn’t take a particular risk, ask yourself whether you’re simply trying to avoid missing a shot. And if this is the only real risk, you might instead put your energy into gathering up your courage to take the shot” (2007:101). Taking risk is accepting the chance of evolution, and trans-cultural leaders are “masters” of overcoming differences, ambiguities, uncertainties, anxieties, and risks due to their multicultural experiences and confrontations. Without the ability of exposing oneself to challenges, there is no perception and acceptance of a turning point. Moreover, in the tempest of change not only do leaders have “four eyes”; they need above all skills to plan, divert, and implement the resources of their team to interlock energies and processes in order to focus on the common goal’s achievement. They design vision and purpose, assure conversion and progression, promote maintenance and cohesion, and enhance joint efforts of trust in pursuing the journey. Phase 4 – Practices: Having focus on the vision and goal’s achievement, leaders know how to overcome resistance. They create a supportive environment through synergizing and binding those people, stakeholders, and shareholders who are embracing transformation into collective practices of trans-cultural change. The application of practices requires the ability of leading, managing, and balancing internal and external learning processes between and among the members as well as between the organization’s members and the environment to enhance positive reciprocal influence. Enabling others for the common goal is synergizing and empowering. The positive power accumulates support; and the vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leaders understand the principle of interdependence and the influence of power and ethics on the process of development and change. Thus, they embody an inclusive culture showing respect for different cultural identities and the needs of those who have been marginalized by them. They support processes creating organizational structures and practices that promote the power with and for others supporting positive change. Power sharing is empowering, when synergizing different forces for unifying sense-giving and meaning-making. Identifying the sources of tensions, conflict, and resistance, they pay attention to ways in which they can embrace contradictions and anticipate unhealthy forms of competition and distrust. Establishing an environment of cooperation and collaboration leverages diversity for the common good, which lays the foundation of collective consciousness of practices.


144


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM

145

Above all, leaders in a complex environment of economics and political and social interests have to know how to balance the different effects and consequences of power by building good coalitions, partnerships, teams, and followers based on cooperative learning and sharing synergies. Accordingly, finance and marketing strategies, production efficiency, and services cannot be detached from human resources, communication, culture, and the learning ability of the organization. Leaders are able to bridge the gaps not only between the diversity of the people and the different interest groups within and outside of the organization, but also between dominant culture and subcultures, or between the ethnocentric and the geocentric orientations, and between hard and soft factors (Funakawa, 1997). In this context of different interests and conflicts, trans-cultural leaders are good synthesizers and positive interactionists between the expectations of the ‘6 Cs’: the Company’s viability: the Community’s demands (internal and external environment); the standards of the Competitors and the needs of the Customers; the effects of Communication and the dynamics of Culture (compare Funakawa’s 6 Cs, 1997). Feedback loops must be appropriate to revise priorities, correct strategies and directions, and serve to ensure routines as well as trust among those supporting transformation. Phase 5 – Power: Trans-cultural transformation is on a deep level a cultural paradigm shift, because it steps out of the current discursive frame and evolves from new discursive formation synergizing new perspectives and prospectives in order to create trans-cultural leadership ensuring trans-cultural transformation. Therefore, a learning culture for change and development must be created, fostered, and nurtured. Within this creation the organization or community in transformation relies on strong leadership vision giving meaningful orientation enhancing sustainable survival. Leadership requires the ability to go beyond the context-sensitivity and multiple perspectives, while initiating, creating, and above all supporting shared meanings and experiences for the same mission and direction. The 6 Cs mentioned above – company, community, competitors, customers, communication and culture – must be joined together to form the strategic focus of organizational and cultural transformation. Leaders weigh up resistance against change with motivation for a “sustainable worthwhile future” by creating a learning organization and cultural values perceiving challenges as opportunities for continuous improvement, because the organization and community are driven by the urge of their needs of meaningful survival. There is the reason to be




10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM


more. Communication is the means of keeping followers and communities aligned with the values and goals of an organization. Leaders create a positive environment where people can contribute to collective success and where they experience their values, together with concomitant benefits. Through sharing positive experiences they support each other and enhance acceptance of diversity as resources for common solutions and for the goal of common survival. Trust and common spirit give the required stabilization. By sharing success, leaders facilitate the feelings of ownership of the goal’s achievement and empower members to act for common improvement. A culture based on collaboration, shared continuous learning, and developing solidarity comforts people with feelings of safety and trust throughout difficult times. Within these dynamic processes leaders show high conscientiousness, integrity and emotional resilience to balance the different forces into one focus. In sum, trans-cultural leadership goes beyond the ability of adapting behavior to the existing cultural context. Trans-cultural leadership is interventional in the sense that it is characterized by open-endedness and high performance of transformation. In small steps trans-cultural leaders lead their organization and members through ambiguities and uncertainties by adjusting safety, and by means of giving meaning and drawing attention to perceiving little wins as sense-providing contributions. In time of crisis, of multiple options of values and orientations, trans-cultural leaders must show full presence to be able to give orientation and anchor. Trans-cultural leadership begins with personality and self-management, which is the precondition for situational awareness and management of sensitive circumstances such as conflict and transition.

Reflection and discussion issues Over the past decade many scholars and trainers proposed several models of self-mastery as the precondition for leadership development, some of them referring concepts to Senge’s (1990) theories “The Fifth Discipline.” Based on learning theories, Scharmer (2004) developed a new model which has become increasingly popular in training and coaching managers for change. This concept is called the “U-Process of Leading Profound Innovation and Change.” In the same period as Senge, Bennis et al. (1994) introduced developmental management, which they called “beyond leadership balancing economics, ethics and ecology.” The fundamental change starts with the leader’s personality first; this first stage they call “Self-Mastery.” According to them,


146


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM

147

“Self-Mastery” evolves from detached involvement necessary for transformation; they explain as follows: “This involves a synthesis between your self-centered, ego-level needs and your self-less consciousness as a transcendent being. You then experience a kind of self-ness, operating from an integrated and “balanced” level of being. Such transformative and synergistic approaches alone can bring about the kind of goal congruence – at a microand macro-level – that is now being increasingly expected from organizations, and therefore from managers. In fact, such “master managers” are expected to perform the multiple leadership roles of “focalizer,” “facilitator,” “synergizer,” and “co-creator”: ● ● ●

●

Focalizer, generating shared vision, mission, position, and attention Facilitator, bringing about commitment, action, harmony, and growth Synergizer, helping to achieve individual/organizational/societal role/goal congruence Co-creator, positioning oneself as co-learner and co-shaper of success – the first among equals, not the “hero.”

In that managerial capacity you need to balance, and integrate, the economic and technological goals of business with the ecological and psycho-social aspirations of society, through a shared vision and committed action. In order to understand the complexities involved, and be able to achieve such goal and role congruence, you need, as a manager, to develop a higher level of creativity, a deeper level of consciousness of detached involvement, and the associated knowledge, skills, and attitudes.” (Bennis et al., 1994 :37) Compare the thesis of trans-cultural leaders as transformational learners of trans-cultural leadership and the concept of self-mastery. Discuss the basic ideas and purposes from those concepts. In reference to your conclusion, what concrete options for action would you set up in an environment of high diversity (take your company for example) to: 1) get clear on the goal; 2) analyze diversity mixture; 3) check for diversity differences and tension; 4) build relationships and coalitions; 5) foster mutual improvement and adaptation.

Further reading ●

●

5.4

Bennis, W., J. Parikh, and R. Lessem (1994). Beyond Leadership. Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology. Oxford, Blackwell Ltd. Scharmer, Otto C. (2004) Theorie U: Leading Profound Innovation and Change by Presencing Emerging Futures. MIT [online] www.ottoscharmer.com.



Leadership of trans-cultural competence T-COM

Here we raise the question of what personality and self-management of leadership implies. Kouzes and Posner explained: “Exemplary leaders go first. They go first by setting the example through daily actions


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM


that demonstrate they are deeply committed to their beliefs” (2007:16). Kotter emphasized, “walk the talk,” and added, “When the top five or fifty people all live the change vision, employees will usually grasp it better than if there had been a hundred stories in the in-house newsletter. When they see top management acting out the vision, a whole set of troublesome questions about credibility and game playing tends to evaporate” (Kotter, 1996:95). Senge (2006) pointed out that the “personal vision comes from within” (p. 136), enhancing the development of personal mastery. In other words, leaders are the change, the hope they wish for in their environment. For Schein (2004) leaders are perpetual learners and representative of a culture or of an organizational culture in learning progress. Senge continued this idea by introducing the core disciplines of a learning organization: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Many of these terms have been discussed in this book from different perspectives. In short, one can say trans-cultural leadership masters leadership of trans-cultural competence. First of all, what is competence? Competence is a set and a net of competencies reflecting capability of performance and providing the person with knowledge, skills, and qualities to interact and function well in a society that is rapidly changing and increasing in diversification and mobility. Trans-cultural competence is complex, in the sense that it refers to performances in multicultural or cross-cultural contexts. It requires more than the mastery of different language skills, knowledge of cultures and flexibility in unfamiliar situations. Hence, in reference to international context and management trans-cultural competence embraces: 1. Personal qualities: the awareness of one’s own integrity, potential and limits, the recognition of the impact of cultural paradigm on cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns in interaction and relationship building. 2. Interactive qualities: the ability to enter into dialogue, to go beyond cultural frames in order to understand opposite points of view, and to create with others new patterns of understanding, respecting, and valuing as the fundamental basics for dialogue.


148

3. Methodological qualities: the application of the principles of transcultural competence in practicing management and leadership. 4. Quality of knowledge: the understanding of the dynamics of culture and power, and the complexity of causes and consequences at


10/5/2010 12:41:03 PM


149

Trans-cultural competence is a process and not an end that should be easily attained. The focus is on the way of performance, and thus is a lifelong learning. This acquisition needs professional training or a place for regular reflection which can only assured in interaction with others. Trans-cultural competence evolves in a learning context. I would like to use the metaphor of the Japanese tea ceremony to describe the learning design process for trans-cultural competence. It also explains my chosen abbreviation of T-COM. The tea ceremony engages the host/hostess (teishu) and the guest in an interaction where body and mind are fully present. Both live in the moment of an aesthetic performance which gives sensation and sense to the act. The teishu and the guest are both involved in the same process and share their attention to each simple act. Each interactive manifestation is a careful contribution to the creation of profound meaning giving beauty and sensual meaning to that moment of creation. The reciprocal interaction gives birth to the moment of deep understanding by sharing the experience of that moment. To achieve this, the teishu may spend decades mastering not only the measured procedures for “making tea” (chado), but also learning to pay attention to the needs and responses of others and their surroundings. The acquisition of trans-cultural competence should not be understood as something dry, abstract, or a kind of imposed didactical procedure. It should be a process of creation synergizing ethics and aesthetics while doing “simple” things. It is a dialogue between subject and object, between human being and the environment, between mind and soul, between and above all among meaning-makers and sense-givers. The meaning of something is not dependent on the meaning in itself, but lives in the acts and thoughts of those who give birth but also spirit to that meaning. The way meanings are shared and expressed reflects the content, intensity, and quality of the values attached to the expressions, hence the outcomes of the dialogue. The tea ceremony implies a complexity in the creation of meaning and reflects it in the ease and simplicity of measured actions. Trans-cultural competence is a process that is acquired through an ongoing accumulation of abilities and actions in measured ways. The learning and teaching processes should enhance each other in such a way that change and transformation of awareness become possible without insisting that “the way is the goal”. Like the tea ceremony, Trans-cultural competence has


individual, collective, and organizational levels in regards to cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.


10/5/2010 12:41:04 PM

to be initiated by the teishu who is responsible for formulating the learning and teaching process. Hence the abbreviation “T-Ching” process. The T-Ching process refers to the Chinese philosophy of I-Ching, the “Book of Changes.” Thus the T-Ching process is the process initiated by the “teacher” or teishu to design the basis of change of a web of meaning and behavior in which guests or “stakeholders” join and become creative participants of T-COM. Accordingly, leadership of transformation is mentoring the environment for trans-cultural change. In other words, leaders are masters of trans-cultural competence and are leading others to develop trans-cultural leadership through transformation. The acquisition of trans-cultural competences can be identified as objectives on three circular levels, where the beginning is also the ending of a new process. 5.4.1

The T-Ching process of T-COM

1. Preparation of the T-utensils Primarily, the “teachers” (or masters and leaders) have to focus on and to provide a stable basis of affective competencies - like the teishu creating an atmosphere of warmth and comfort – of trust and confidence. The “teachers” use the personcentered approach (individualist/relationship orientation) and support their followers and community in their process of exploration and identification of the “aesthetics and ethics“ of the enrichment of the group, organization, community, and environment at large – depending on the level at which the leaders or “masters” are active or want to be active. The teishu plant seeds of inquisitiveness and open-mindedness to enable the participants to discover other worlds, other points of view, and the wealth which results from active observations and of sharing experiences as an act of respect, which is at the same time an act of going beyond one’s potential. The dialogue establishes a web of relationship and is the seed of improving empathy, understanding self through understanding others. The recognition of stepping outside one’s system in order to meet others gets essential value for continual improvement. Level one is the starting point and represents at the same time the basics for other levels of activities.



2. “Ritual” performance Like the teishu guiding the guests to a series of open doors before the start of the tea ceremony, the leaders as mentors (and teachers) have developed tools and methods to guide their followers to start the journey of transformation. They organize structures and processes to motivate and stimulate their followers to translate


10/5/2010 12:41:04 PM

151

Level 2 (Method)

Level 3 (Objectives)

use the person-centered approach (individualist/relationship orientation) in settings of diversity and differences

identify the common need, hope, and vision that should be reflected in finding solution, communication and management to attain the common goal

set up the basics of a culture in which this sharing of common “dreams” come true

Level 1 (Focus on affective competency) establish an ambiance of mutual respect as the seed for trust and confidence , as the foundation for competency in relationships building and maintaining The host/hostess (teishu) prepares not only the kettle, the bowl, and the tea leaves, but also has to carefully choose the flowers, the vase, and the decorations to create an atmosphere of warmth and beauty, a place of comfort. It is not just a gesture of welcoming the guests. The way the teishu pays attention and respect to the environment is the way for the guests to follow in the teishu ’s footsteps in creating a supportive atmosphere. Figure 5.3

The T-Ching process of T-COM – preparation

uncertainties into challenges of growth, differences into resources of broadening knowledge, tensions and conflicts into potential of foresight, sensitivity and intuitive clarity. By applying an integrated perspective or the holistic approach leaders and masters of T-COM activate their members’ sensitivity to the diverse and controversial perceptions and interpretations to step outside their taken-for-granted system of knowledge by then. Based on cooperation, collaboration, and solidarity the learning organization develops in mutual exchange strategies and solutions to overcome their boundaries and frames in order to move on the path as “common destiny” for a new organizational culture. 3. Manifestation of the “mastery” Trans-cultural competence is embedded in the process and thus a continuous acquisition of competencies or a never-ending development aiming at mastery. The T-COM master pays attention to and enjoys the process the members go through, empowering themselves and others by developing and implementing their strategies of giving aesthetic and ethical meaning to their action. This happens through sharing and caring for each other by collaborating for the same goal. By experiencing that their well-being and success




10/5/2010 12:41:04 PM

152


Level 2 (Method)


use the holistic or integrated (inclusive) approach through reflection and analysis

increase sensitivity towards the diversity of perception and interpretation

work on self-mastery with the help and support of others and find sense and meaning while doing so

Level 1 (Focus on cognitive competency) establish a basis for active reflection as the seed of going beyond one’s frames and potential as the foundation for continual improvement When the guests arrive, they are guided to a series of open doors. The teishu organizes the structure and processes when and how guests should take seat in the room of the creation of the tea ceremony. Each of the guests gets the necessary objects and artifacts to be prepared for the sharing of tea. None of the guests feels unattended; the attention they receive is part of the whole ceremony.

Figure 5.4

The T-Ching process of T-COM – performance

Level 2 (Method)


use the empowerment approach for trans-cultural change

apply self-mastery for the development of key competencies in difficult situations

Level 1 (Focus on behavioral competency) establish a basis for reflective action as the seed of shared power in the sense-giving and meaning creation as the foundation for trans-cultural transformation


explore the enrichment of diversity and differences as resources for improvement and finding solutions

The objective of a tea party is not how to make tea. Both the teishu and the guests engage in the ceremony, share their attention to the process of gradual sensitization and the development of abilities to cope gracefully with the little “dramas” of the everyday world.

Figure 5.5

The T-Ching process of T-COM – manifestation


10/5/2010 12:41:04 PM

153

is based on elaborating a cohesive collaboration and positive relationship strengthens their recognition and acceptance of the need of sharing and caring as fundamental condition for goal’s achievement. The leading of T-Ching process for T-COM requires the mastery of T-COM. In other words like a teishu of a tea ceremony trans-cultural leaders for transformation have spent years for the sophistication of T-COM and will continue developing, improving, and mastering of T-COM while leading others to gain leadership for trans-cultural transformation at different levels. A transformation of an organization or of a system needs a transformation at all levels; this requires development on all levels. 5.4.2

The dimensions of the acquisition of T-COM

Trans-cultural competence emerges from the interactive processes with the environment and its context. The acquisition of T-COM is seen as essentially dependent on the willingness and ability of the members and the environment to perceive every situation as a challenge to be mastered and growth. Thus T-COM is a product and a process in three dimensions of improvement: 1) affective; 2) behavioral; and 3) cognitive. They influence each other within the meaning-/concept-making process. Their interdependence is expressed by the relationship between the individual – the I – and the environment – the other. The relationship between the individual and the environment is embedded in an interactive pattern determined by various contextual factors and dimensions. These factors are formed and transformed by selective perception, cognition, goalsetting, role-playing, communicative strategies, and the evaluation of how the given situations are dealt with. The culture of communication, thus the mental pattern, is an ongoing process between the leading person, group, organization, or network of organizations and those willing to change and find common vision and strategies for survival. Situations vary according to time, space, groups, interactors, goals, and intentions. For instance, the setting of goals, role-playing and communicative strategies are different in a three-day international negotiation conference between the company or institution with other stakeholders’ groups (where the main leaders are confronted with various frames of reference from members of different social, political, economic, and ethnic orientations) working on the same goal’s achievement from a week’s program among the subsidiaries of the same company working on the company’s definition of sustainable survival. A one-day international session for the evaluation of a project group is different from a one-day international assessment with divisions’ leaders from different parts of the world. Trans-cultural competence is the precondition




10/5/2010 12:41:05 PM

154

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation Transcultural Competence meaning

making process

affective dimension

I

cognitive dimension

relationship

Other

interactive pattern in reference to the context perception

Figure 5.6

cognition

goal setting

role taking

communicative evaluation of the strategies confrontation

Dimensions of the acquisition of T-COM

for the management of change that is emergent as well as imposed or directed, in mutual two-way flow, top-down and bottom-up. The quality of T-COM depends on the quality of relationship between the I and the other, hence, on the collective consciousness influencing behavioral, affective, and cognitive dimensions. This has an impact on the discursive formation and implementation of strategies which defines circularly the quality of T-COM and the continual improvement. 5.4.3 The principles and approaches of trans-cultural competence Trans-cultural competence requires the ability to develop profound knowledge allowing for net- and cross-linking analysis and of taking action. The guiding principle of T-COM is the willingness to go beyond one’s potential to improve self-mastery and so to prove worthy of leadership for others. T-COM is a web of interrelated levels of affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. The capability to have self-respect and respect for others is fundamental for the establishment of trust and confidence. Only when there is a feeling of resilience and safety, can active reflection providing the stepping out of the current mental frame be opened up. This leads further to reflective action. T-COM is best developed in a supportive environment where cooperative learning facilitates mutual improvement and members are open for the self-mastery in order to take


behavioral dimension


10/5/2010 12:41:05 PM


155

social responsibility and to find common solution for complex problem. The organization may offer a promoting architecture of continual learning; however, each member is the architect of their own “future.”

One has to “purchase and secure” respect in a society of unequal diversity which causes, in Sennett’s words, “a scarcity of respect” (2004). However, Sennett adds, “self-respect cannot be earned in quite the same way people earn money.” In this context trans-cultural competence requires the ability “to produce and to earn” respect. Rogers’s “Person-Centered Approach“ (1951, 1970) provides the basis of safety for self and other, which I consider as essential as a vehicle for going beyond oneself and continual improvement. Rogers has an optimistic, positive view of human nature. He places great importance on an individual’s uniqueness, the potential and inner drive for growth. Rogers’ person-centered principles are empathy, acceptance of others with an unconditional, positive regard, congruency, and genuineness when interacting with them. His approach is based on interactive settings, and prepares individuals for reflective and integrated behavior. Rogers also applies his concept to multicultural settings, to interracial and intercultural groups, as well as to international relations. He believes that groups can offer a growth-promoting environment of interpersonal communication. The group members learn to give and receive attention, recognition, and respect. This in turn creates more understanding and an awareness of each other’s needs. The person-centered approach is particularly crucial for the development of personal and interactive qualities. Rogers’ concept provides the prerequisite for the determination of key principles, hence the basis for trans-cultural competence. Here is the possible derivation: Principles for the creation of trust and confidence personal qualities

the ability to develop introspection (self-awareness, selfinsight), to strengthen self-trust, to give self-meaning, to anchor confidence and resilience, to keep genuineness and congruency in uncertain situations and thus to overcome anxiety

interactive qualities

the ability to contribute and build a climate of safety based on mutual respect, acceptance, empathy, and caring for collective growth

methodological qualities

the ability to listen actively, to paraphrase and to facilitate positive communication

quality of knowledge

the ability to show and have interest in others and to be understanding and not merely to understand


The basis of respect and trust


10/5/2010 12:41:05 PM

156


The basis of active reflection The following approach is a combination of two different approaches, allowing profound analysis and cross-linking reflection. One approach, the SLEPT model, was used in one of the International Intensive Programs with different partner institutions from 2005 to 2007. Lucerne University ran nine International Intensive Training programs from 2002 to 2007, with around 26 different colleges and universities of EU and associated members. The SLEPT model is a comparative model developed by an international team within a Tempus Project linked to the European training ERASMUS Program. SLEPT is an acronym for the following factors: S – socio-cultural L – legal E – economic and ecological P – political T – technological All these aspects or factors refer to a particular situation in which the person or a collective is acting and interacting. The underlying meaning given to the situation or phenomenon depends on the perception, interpretation, and reflection of the persons and/or the collective who create the “world” by giving meaning and value. The SLEPT model is used in a variety of forms in the fields of education as well as in strategic management environments. It is a tool to enable individuals to analyze their context and to predict the effects of their actions on the environment. In a multicultural group it is applied to reflect on different points of view and positions for a broader integrated understanding of a problem, a situation, or a phenomenon. Similar to the SLEPT model, there is the PEST analysis tool, also extended to PESTEL. PESTEL stands for political, economic, social,


Reflection is the heart of every key competence, and can best be developed in an environment of diversity. Diversity offers the chance to discover that a problem has many facets. As there are different ways of regarding and understanding things, so there are many ways of solving problems and changing situations. Reflection requires comparative frameworks as well as tools and methods to deal with them. Reflective action implies the ability to reflect on the self while analyzing a situation or an objective from different perspectives.


10/5/2010 12:41:05 PM


157

1. The global perspective embraces the overall context, thus including the local perspective. 2. The socio-cultural perspective gives the basis of values on which political and economic “mental maps” are developed. 3. The ecological perspective concerns the relationship humans and nature, the natural resource. 4. The psycho-social development perspective represents the overall guide to action or direction supporting action. The global perspective consists of dimensions such as: unity, diversity, interdependence, globalization, localization, and world citizenship. The socio-cultural perspective is presented in dimensions such as: the set of power formation; values and principles on which human actions are based; the universality of the values and the application regulations; the role of reference cultures as guiding standards. The ecological perspective is related to four dimensions: holism and unity (the relationship between humankind and nature); diversity (of species and conditions within the web of life); equilibrium (the impact of people on the environment) and finally sustainability. The social development perspective focuses on four dimensions: This perspective is value-based, involves proactive intervention, and is multidimensional and multilevel. Similar to the SLEPT model, the integrated-perspectives model is suggested as a tool for analysis of every aspect of any situation, an approach to define causation and consequences, a model for identifying possible responses and finally as an overview of the actual intervention process for change. The SLEPT model is a convenient tool for reflective analysis on the micro-level and the integrated-perspectives model on the macro-level. To apply the combination of these two approaches we need to simplify and reduce many factors and dimensions to key items and come to the following proposed set of principles for trans-cultural competence.


technical, environment, and legislative, and is applied in strategic planning for small to large group activities. It supports analysis of internal and external pressures and expands the perception dimension. The other approach to analyze a situation or an objective is the integrated-perspectives approach developed by Cox and Pawar (2006) in the framework of international practice. Cox and Pawar’s perspectives were especially focused on social fields. Hence I adjust their suggestions for organizational analysis:


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM

158


personal qualities

the ability to accept dynamic experiences as learning situations, to open the mind up for complexity and the resulting paradoxes, to know how to bear contradictions, ambiguity, and insecurity, to find ways in which to keep a balance between consistency and continuity in the search of new orientation, to keep balance between self-assertion and integration in new processes


the ability to communicate and negotiate commonalities and differences, to find compromises and consensus, to take, change and adapt roles and positions in reference to the context, to participate in the creation and sharing of new meanings with others for common goals


the ability to coordinate and network the complexity as well as to reduce, categorize, and systematize complexity in order to keep focus on the vision


the ability to compare, understand, contextualize, and link different aspects, perspectives and levels, also to evaluate and synthesize in the search of new solutions

The basis of reflective action Cognition does not necessarily induce recognition, or transformative action. Reflective action strives for performances to make the ideas and values in mind come true. The consciousness of competence becomes visible and lived out. Reflective action is aesthetics and ethics in practice. Leaders are creators of aesthetics. In other words, leadership is sensual sense-giving in action, hence, an aesthetic function by implying power and influence on the vision and on the action to implement that vision. In this context, reflective action is reflective power in application. When a sense is given, meaning is created in a collective process, the power becomes shared and is empowering. T-COM lives in the action of giving values to that something. Trans-cultural competence goes beyond cognition and focuses on action. It is a reflective action striving to actively giving and receiving awareness, care and value to the act, the object in an environment in order to move on and improve. Empowerment means developing power within oneself not at the expense of others but through building and improving confidence in each other in order to have trust in the “future” and thus transform challenges to attain common goals. Empowerment enables members to develop action strategies and to gain control over their interactions. Empowerment is created in dialogue, within the team, group,


Principles for the development of active reflection


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM

159

and community sharing common values, striving for common visions. The most eminent and influential ambassador of the empowerment approach is Paolo Freire (1972), who pointed out the importance of interactive exchange, of dialogue for the development of “conscientization” emerging from the reflection on profound knowledge. His term conscientization implies more than the awareness of one’s own situation; it is also about one’s “awakeness” to the power to transform the structural pattern. Dialogue is not merely confined to deepening understanding of each other’s perceptions, interpretations or situations. In dialogue there is a cooperative activity searching for understanding and finding solutions. Through sharing observations the group develop outside their frames new experiences that assure everybody’s identification with the common goal. This collective “awakeness” enhances collective power of transformation. The growing networking leads to collective action, and finally the collective improvement beyond current potential. The common goals and visions consolidate differences and diversity . However, Kotter (1996) mentioned in his book Leading Change different barriers that blocked empowerment, although employees understand the vision and want to make it a reality. These are often the case: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Bosses discourage actions aimed at implementing the new vision. Formal structures make it difficult to act. Personnel and information systems make it difficult to act. A lack of required skills undermines action.

Let’s assume a learning environment is opening, the key managers at the top acknowledge the necessity of change and have leadership competence for transformation, and they facilitate personnel and information systems for the transition. Accordingly, much depends on the leadership ability to implement and foster learning among the members, especially among those who would be able to multiply trans-cultural leadership for transformation. It requires a “conscientization”. Consequently, the principles of reflective action are derived from the approach of “conscientization” emerging from profound knowledge and empowerment. These principles are summarized as follows:



Principles for development of reflective action personal qualities

the ability to create awareness and “awakeness,” to control, life and action to change one’s own situation and that of others for the better


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM



the ability to create a network of different partners; engage others to participate in the creation of meaning-making and sense-giving (values creation); to use different resources (economic, social, cultural capitals) for the transformation toward common goals and survival


the ability to develop strategies, tools and skills to empower self and others for internal and external integration and transformation and to ensure sustainability for the coming “generation”


the ability to contextualize the interdependence of causes and consequences; to take different perspectives so as to make independent judgments; to go beyond differences and contradictions in order to find common issues, goals and visions as common interest; to create knowledge in response to challenges and obstacles

Trans-cultural competence is a continual improvement, in other words, a process of lifelong learning. Difficulties are not perceived as dead ends but as challenges of potential growth. Accordingly, an environment with learning resistance is not an insurmountable barrier. As trans-cultural competence is an ongoing accumulation of abilities and actions in measured ways, the learning processes enhance each other in such a way that change and transformation of awareness become possible without insisting that “the way is the goal.” The paradox is that while being conscious of what one is doing, the doing becomes unconscious. Transformation gets the stage of unconscious competence (see Section 4.3). Like the tea ceremony, trans-cultural competence has to be initiated by the teishu, here in our context by the leader who is responsible for initiating and supporting the transformation. Leaders are in the position of mentoring the processes, in which they themselves are members of these processes. Summary questions ●

●

●

●

What does it imply in the metaphor of the teishu of a tea ceremony in the application for trans-cultural leadership? What does it mean to create beauty and meaning while leading a group, an organization, or a community to overcome threatening situations? What competencies does trans-cultural competence embrace? And how are these competencies interrelated? Draw parallels between a master of a tea ceremony and the master of trans-cultural competence!


160


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM


161

●

●

Explain the necessity of respect and trust for the foundation of relationship quality and of communication competence. Design steps to promote respect and trust in your team, group, division, or organization. Choose a situation or a problem. Develop a concept to apply the SLEPT dimensions approach with your people. Then, try to translate from their interpretative perspectives backwards to their basic needs. Then, go on and ask what is necessary to create happiness and safety which ensure their basic needs in such a way that the common goal is achieved.


Develop tools, training or formation programs to foster the basis of respect and trust, the basis of active reflection and the basis of reflective action. Start with small projects first, such as preparation of daily interactions, meetings, and workshops, before you go on with a whole program of change. The tools are always specific to the situation. These could be guidelines or rituals, but also settings, processes, and even space design.

Recommended reading and websites ●

●

●

●

●

●

5.5

Herman, Stanley H. (2001). The Tao at Work. On Leading and Following. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Higgs, M. (2000). “Do leaders need emotional intelligence? A study of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership of change,” in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour. Vol. 5(6), 195–212. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., McKee, A.(2002). Primal Leadership. Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing. Greene, R. R. (1999). “Carl Rogers and the Person-Centered Approach,” in Greene, R. R. (ed.), Human Behavior Theory and Social Work Practice. New York, Aldine de Gruyter. SLEPT analysis tool: www.thetimes100.co.uk/downloads/theory/slept_ analysis.pdf PESTEL Analysis tool: http://university-essays.tripod.com/pest_pestel_ pestle_lepest_analysis.html



Trans-cultural leadership for transformation

Change performance depends upon the particular circumstances of the environment, and upon situational variables of interdependencies on local and global dimensions. When leaders and organizations develop trans-cultural competence and leadership, they create strategic value


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM

not only for the organization but also for the environment in which the transformation takes place. According to MetrixGlobal studies (Anderson and Anderson, 2005), investment in leadership training and coaching consistently delivers business value. Transformational change can unfold best where an organization recognizes the value creation of trans-cultural leadership and provides excellent conditions in order to evolve at different levels. It is a systemic or holistic transformation and not just a privilege of a few individuals, even though it starts in the selfmastery of individuals joining in the common commitment. Collective synergy of individual self-mastery enhances organizational learning and an environment of continual improvement. Gaining reflective insight and profound knowledge about the system in changing is one of the first steps. Leadership concepts, values, and styles undergo continuing ideological and social changes. Trans-cultural leadership is a mix of different leadership concepts, and within the context of global diversification and increasing mobility it is considered as the cross-cultural applicability of transformational leadership. Different people from different places, with multiple identities and orientations are driven into living and working together. Disagreements and conflicts due to personal and collective interests and asymmetrical power use, diffusion of disorientations increase stress, uncertainty and anxiety and finally cause people to hold on to “old safety” tightly while clinging to their old patterns of strategy of viability, thus implicitly excluding other possibilities of solutions and change. Having the experiences based on multicultural confrontations trans-cultural leaders are used to being exposed to sensitive circumstances of tensions and conflicts, and consequently develop sensitivity to non-verbal clues and intuition for invisible dynamics. They can step out of their socialized paradigm and embrace high levels of ambiguity and are willing to fail, in other words, to learn by unlearning. This ability is of relevance and the precondition for transformational change; it requires the ability to step outside one’s current comfort zone and to open oneself to the unthinkable. Going beyond one’s boundaries, thus potential, implies unveiling one’s own vulnerability. The confrontation with the unknown and fears can only be balanced by high self-insight and the feelings of deep-rootedness in self-confidence (resilience). Trans-cultural leadership is not simply diversity management, as it focuses on transformational change on all levels beginning from individual/personal development to collective learning, and further to a learning organization. Conflicts, crisis, and uncertainties are not the




10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM

163

moment to hold old patterns and defend them, but they offer the opportunity of transforming crisis into turning points in a direction that one has not expected yet, but it becomes a creative solution for all. Trans-cultural leadership of transformation is a mastery. Leaders perceive crisis and challenges not as failures or fates that they have to learn to accept, but within this battle of crisis they find ways leading them out and make their interventions into innovative inventions. Leaders perceive crises and challenges as opportunities to prove their creativity, to develop things that none have dared to foster before. They are masters of transforming difficult situations into “beauties,” in the sense of inspiration and accomplishment in the discovery of new ways and worlds. A strong vision of “survival“ ensuring sustainable quality of life stimulates the willingness of doing something to change the situation. Anxiety and uncertainty are not in the foreground. Therefore, leadership goes beyond management; it has an ethical and aesthetical function. Trans-cultural leaders are not lone fighters; their presence is lived out in the presence of the followers, groups, and communities who are joining in making collective contributions to the creation of a culture of aesthetic and ethic that everybody can finally live with. Like a teishu, trans-cultural leaders create in fact an atmosphere of vitality and creativity. In the context of pluralism of values, trans-cultural leaders must define a vision, which emerges from diversity and even from contradictory experiences. The challenge of trans-cultural leadership is to give one orientation among many possibilities of orientation. Accordingly, trans-cultural leaders have to think of the most effective vision ensuring the collective viability and survival. Not only can followers and stakeholders identify with the vision, but the environment at large would support the process of that meaning given to them. Handling challenges for a cultural paradigm shift is an organizational and an environmental evolution. Cultural paradoxes can cause crises; however, they offer by far the chance to leave behind old patterns and find new solutions. Trans-cultural competence can imply the ability to make a synthesis out of thesis and antithesis in the recognition of multiple divergent options. Moreover, teishu does not live in vision. Concrete actions have to be taken; a structure of small steps of performance must be set. Little “aesthetic” actions or wins of satisfaction produce feelings of meaningful success. This results in collective validation of the organizational change as the “way of life.” How real is trans-cultural leadership for transformation? Have we ever had this kind of leadership before? Human history speaks volumes about outstanding leaders; most of them remain unknown. Theories on




10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM


leadership are mental concepts based on observation of real examples. Leaders for transformation have always existed; they are not recent phenomena. Many unknown leaders, especially women leaders and those of marginalized and indigenous groups, are real specialists of leading their groups through difficult times and crisis and evolve with them transformation ensuring their survivals. Trans-cultural leadership refers to times of increasing diversity and globalization. Talking about economics, where global and local dimensions are affecting each other, there is quite a number of excellent leaders setting good examples, and more of them will be “made.”

Exhibit 5.1 Nicolas Hayek – a Living Example of Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation With residence in Switzerland, I happen to live in the regional neighborhood of the outstanding personality, Nicolas Hayek, also known as Mr. Swatch, who I consider as the role model of “trans-cultural leadership for transformation”. Nicolas Hayek has not just a multicultural background, but also multicultural experiences in life and business. This alone would not make him the trans-cultural leader. With Lebanese roots, he has, however, successfully managed to ensure the turnaround of ailing Swiss watch manufacturing firms in the 1980s, in a region which has become – due to his innovative entrepreneurship – renamed the Swatch Valley of Switzerland. Without this turnaround, thousands of people of that region, where I live, would be unemployed. This success could be acknowledged to be the excellent result of leadership of transformation. However, this success still would not justify the concept of trans-cultural leadership for transformation. Surely, Hayek proves managerial skills and high leadership quality in multicultural and multinational environments to bridge different cultures. His workforce is not merely multicultural but transnational not only within his companies spread as subsidiaries, manufacturers, and factories all over many countries and outside his companies. In this regard Hayek is a transnational and transcultural leader. But what is trans-cultural transformation about him? In an interview in 2005 and in his book, when talking about his strategies of making the turnaround and gaining the leading position for the entire Swiss watch industry worldwide since 1984, Hayek (2005) compared his role with that of a ship’s captain in a very big tempest: “Nobody knew what to do and everybody was scared that they were going to die and everybody was giving up (...) It was to say ‘No’, we can be better, and not only by saying ‘No’ we can do better, by showing the way what to do to get better. That was the role that was needed – leadership.” So what happened? How did the turnaround occur? Hayek brought hope, vision, and a new culture, and he was the creator of hope, the initiator of vision, and the mentor of a new culture. Hayek was walking the talk and modeling the way to transformation. Taking over an ailing business venture without focusing on financial maximization would


164


10/5/2010 12:41:06 PM

165

be leading with closed eyes. However, Hayek was highly critical of companies that cut jobs, make people redundant, or continually restructure. For he said, “Many, many managers in very big companies would reorganise their companies six times every year. They organise, reorganise, disorganise and then they forget about the main problem which is the product.” Simply said, related to product there are workers and consumers, thus people. Having the responsibility to save foreign firms from financial collapse, Hayek did the right thing. He focused on the people and made them feel not just that they are a workforce, but that they are contributors to the growth of a takeover; he treated them as members of a firm family. Hayek said, “People should not be considered a cost factor in a company because they are the ones that form a family. And it is that family that has to come up with the product.” Not merely having self-confidence and believing in the prosperity one will produce, but Hayek proves his mastery in putting confidence in others, thus trusting them the future by being the example of going ahead. He said, “When you see these things, you can react to them. You can prepare and do the right thing. That’s one reason for our success. The second is giving confidence and motivating people.” And he continued, “This family that are the people working in this company should feel very strong when you are around, should feel really that we are going to win the battle. If you can give this feeling to everybody, then you always win.” Hence, the success of the Swatch group is based on sharing and experiencing a collective vision and action for a sustainable survival for everybody. Risks, conflicts, and uncertainties seemed to be chances and challenges to him, as he shows full presence in whatever he does though the focus on the product, but with the full truthful awareness for his people’s growth and improvement. Accordingly, his strategy of being the best in the world is based on not only motivating people but also keeping innovation at a very high level, taking everyone seriously whatever their ideas. He said, “We don’t kill creativity in this company. We let it really grow... That’s why I keep saying you should keep the fantasy of your six years. It’s not a joke I’m making. It’s real.” To sum up, Nicolas Hayek, Chairman and Delegate of the Board of Directors of the Swatch Group, and one of the initiators of the creation of the Smart Car, can be considered as the “teishu“ who has managed to synergize organizational culture with business accomplishment. He is not just a meaningmaker and sense-giver on organizational and cultural levels; he concretized the aesthetic and ethic meanings represented in products which represent at the same time the world the people live with. His products such as watches and high technologies in solar energy are the reflection of the meaning he wants to share with his stakeholders and shareholders. He said: “We produce beauty, sensuality, emotionality in watches.” The actions of trans-cultural transformation are not simply a question of the balance between economic and ethic value creation, all the more an aesthetic accomplishment. We can say, trans-cultural leaders for transformation are artist entrepreneurs, not in the sense of “l’art pour l’art,” nor in the sense of organizational “transformators”. But they have inspiration and courage to lead others through the crisis by giving meaningful orientation. They are “the anchor“ and “the compass”




10/5/2010 12:41:07 PM


in that tempest so that people still can perceive the “shores of new lands” through fog and mist. Nicolas Hayek is one of the world’s 300 top richest people. However, he is very self-critical and laudably modest. Being successful and still active in the international business world in spite of his retirement, he still refuses to accept an overrated bonus, more a symbolic bonus admitted by his children who are the CEOs of the Swatch group today. He still can find time to talk and chat with simple people not related to his business day as if they were good neighbors. So, I am one of the lucky persons experiencing this other sublime side of him. Although he is a highly demanded person from all over the place, from high-ranking politicians and personalities, he took time to respond to my requests not just with forwarded emails, but also by writing personal letters and encouraging me in my work. Trans-cultural leadership for transformation is not a fantasy. It lives through people having the courage to make a difference in this world. Sources: ● ●

www.swatchgroup.com Hayek, Nicolas G. (2005) Nicolas G. Hayek im Gespräch mit Friedemann Bartu – Ansichten eines Vollblut-Unternehmers. Zürich, NZZ.


166


10/5/2010 12:41:07 PM

Part II


Snapshot of Leadership of the 21st Century


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM

6

In recent years an increasing number of centers and consulting firms have been springing up on the market. Books are filling shelves; guidelines of change management are offered in multiple varieties. Although leadership resounds throughout the countries and companies, leadership seems to remain more a concept in the mind or wishful thinking. In financial crisis, cost-saving measures often cut development programs and processes in the belief that people are by nature mature enough to make decisions for long-term survival with regard to the community and environment they live and work with as well being responsible for. This chapter is a small snapshot of how a few managers perceived leadership in the 21st century. It is more a story drawing a draft represented by a quick survey conducted online with managers at different levels and in different practice fields. The aim of the survey is to design “the image of leadership” revealed by the managers’ opinions. The results can be used as suggesting indicators for the construction of a “would-be” leadership and give some ideas where the focus of development leadership competencies could be. Within the limited time condition, it is by no means the aim of the survey to observe the managers’ leadership styles in their organizations in process, which would provide, of course, additional and essential knowledge about any leadership style in practice and reality.

6.1


The Image of Leadership

Review of related theories

According to behavioral theories (see Section 3.1), leadership can be acquired and comes in all levels. In comparison to management, which seems to be more of a technical acquisition, certain leadership traits are favorable to increase confidence of followers and in followers’ ability to 169


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM

develop personal mastery. The question, to what extent traits are purely innate and whether certain traits could not be reduced through experiences and personality development, would go beyond the scope of this book and is not the aim of this snapshot. Moreover, many surveys have been invested for personnel recruitment in human resource management. Traits and behaviors are interrelated, and thus it is impossible to separate them from each other. Human traits such as intelligence, selfconfidence, determination, integrity, and sociability favor credibility of leadership (see Section 3.1.1). Taking over leadership is not just to be in power or in the fore, but it implies innovative solutions by inspiring and motivating others to transform the vision into actions. This differs from management (see Section 3.3). Transformational leadership gets most attention in times of crisis, when people are longing for a new direction and change. Transformational leaders exert emotional, thus motivational effects through bridging followers’ self concepts to organizational visions, and to create feelings of ownership, which finally support the goal’s achievement. Transformational leadership implies charismatic aspect, which “arises from the interaction of leader capacities (self-confidence, dominance, moral conviction), leader behavior (successful role-modeling one’s beliefs and values, articulation of goals and visions, communicating high expectations, tapping into followers’ motives), follower characteristics (motive compatibility, identification with leader), and situational factors (crises, need for social change). These factors work together, enabling charismatic leaders to inspire trust, loyalty, devotion, and commitment in their followers” (Avolio and Yammarino, 2002:257). These criteria are necessary to build cohesion and a strong collective identity going beyond individual needs and peculiarities (see Section 3.5). Due to the many experiences of being flexible in different situations trans-cultural leaders have developed cultural introspection and high insight which allow them to capture invisible messages and act sensitively and intuitively in challenging circumstances (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4). Exposed to different cultures and thus having gone through many conscious unlearning situations, trans-cultural leaders are subjects of continuous transformation (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5). Hence, the transformational aspect is a part of trans-cultural leadership (see Sections 3.5 and 5.5).

6.2



The scope of aims

Researchers and scientists try to construct theories, models, and concepts based on observation and empirical data. They produce new


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM

terms or redefine old concepts and apply them to a concrete situation (deductive approach). What are my primary main intentions in collecting data? Working in an education context, my goal is to understand people’s needs in educational development, thus in training and coaching. Referring to leadership, I want to detect whether the concept of trans-cultural leadership is current, in what combination, how, where and when, in which situation and context (for example, in change or in diversity international management) it is applied. Furthermore, I wish to know whether the issue of trans-cultural leadership is fostered by designed training programs either within or outside of the organizations. Additionally, I wish to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of that particular leadership concept in practical life. Responses to these questions imply deductive and inductive approaches; and a large-scale and long-term research with quantitative and qualitative methods would do it justice. In whichever way, all these necessary approaches are not within the scope of this book. The following results are based on a conducted survey limited to time and resources with specific focus: If I made a snapshot in people’s minds, what landscape of leadership would I get? The aim is simply to collect some opinions of managers working in different fields of activity, such as in business, education, and social organizations, and to draft their images of the “would-be leadership” within a short time. In order to grasp the current thought, I want to know first, what traits and behaviors the surveyed managers judge as beneficial in an international context. Based on the results, I try to identify – from the point of view of the subjects – the most important qualifications for successful leadership. The results give me some clues about personal and interactive qualifications of leadership perceived as “would-be,” in other words, as needed. Additionally, the participants were asked to rate what actions and situations they perceive as difficult, and how they judge the necessity of training and coaching in reference to the problems. The results show the scale of importance of the qualifications for trans-cultural leadership development. The survey does not, however, claim for representativeness. In spite of the respectable length of questionnaire, which takes the participating managers at least an hour of response for a complexity of a “snapshot,” the survey is a somewhat inductive approach, and shows some limits. I am conscious that opinions are very fluid and can change on a daily or even hourly basis. As critically described in Section 5.1, I know that terms and notions should be interpreted carefully as they are associated with different experiences in manifold ways, not only due


The Image of Leadership 171


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM


to the national and cultural backgrounds of the survey’s participants. It also has to be taken into consideration that the practice field and the educational background of the respondents were very heterogeneous; terms and questions were applied and treated differently and according to the respondents’ habitual environment. All this critical reflection is a friendly reminder to researchers, consultants and trainers working, especially, in the international field. It would be deluding or misleading to believe to develop a simple but tasteful recipe for a complex area. In spite of this awareness of limits, the results give me some understanding of “leadership” conveyed by the participants. Knowing how precious time is, I appreciate the responses all the more as valuable subjective feedback of experienced managers taking time to join the survey and share their knowledge with me for a snapshot.

6.3 Applied methods and procedures Time frame surely has the biggest impact on the selection of the aim of the research, as it constricts the determination of the sample group based on their accessibility and availability, and finally the definition of the methodology. Only then could the design of the questionnaire be drafted. To be able to reach as many managers as possible from different countries of business, social, and educational fields, within a very short time, an online survey was chosen. The tool was provided by the university where I work. EvaSys is used especially for quality management at universities. The questionnaire is divided into four parts. Part I contains some information about the participants’ personality, educational backgrounds, and language skills. Leadership requires intelligence and certain cognitive flexibility. Part II refers to the participants’ work experience with different cultures and continents. It also delivers information about the impact of their experiences, which gives me some impressions on the leadership’s potential growth of competencies. Part III is the main part, and comprises questions about favorable traits and behaviors. It tells about the participants’ estimation of the necessity of actions and reactions in multicultural context. Here, they are asked to rate the importance of tasks, processes and responsibilities. Their opinions about the necessity of training and coaching are taken into consideration. Multiple-choice questions allow them many different answers. They are easy to fill in and can be checked easily and quantitatively. Knowing that multiple-choice questions are subject to the research designer’s criteria, the direction of opinions can be selectively narrowed down. On the other hand, the possibility of selecting and rating is introduced to make the responses a little


172


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM

bit more variable. A scale with five different graduations allows some broadening views. Finally, Part IV contains open-ended questions and gives the participants the opportunity to bring in their personal experiences and points of view, as well as their feelings about the questionnaire. Although most of the questions and statements in the survey refer to trans-cultural including transformational leadership, these two terms were intentionally not mentioned or defined in the whole questionnaire. The notion of “trans-cultural leadership“ is used just in the cover email/ letter to the participants and as the title of the survey online.

6.4

Presentation and discussion of the results

The survey was conducted in September 2009 and designed to collect opinions from managers. The questionnaire was sent to more than 100 email subjects to direct and personal mailing: 50 per cent from business, 30 per cent from education, and 20 per cent from socio-cultural fields. The outcome percentages of 50/30/20 occurred with the initial percentages with a negligible variation. Although there was a very encouraging response rate of over 75 per cent it has to be mentioned that the participants were selected by the research designer through personal contacts. Again, it is not the intention of this book to go into deep analysis of the survey. The purpose is to give the readership some references of advantages and disadvantages of snapshots. 6.4.1 Part I: Educational and professional background of the participants Over 90 per cent of the respondents have a university degree, 30 per cent a PhD, over 42 per cent an MA or MBA. They work or have worked in a leading position either as director, dean, CEO, head of a department, or of a project. All of them are multilingual and master several languages. This information corresponds indirectly with many researchers and training consultants’ suggestions that intelligence and language skills are required criteria for the recruitment and selection of leadership and management positions in international fields. 6.4.2



Part II: The relevance of foreign experiences

The responses to foreign experiences give us some references of the impact of the international experiences on cultural awareness, and the development of competencies. Nearly 90 per cent agreed that the foreign experiences have increased their international competencies: Over 80 per cent mention “more cultural awareness of differences and commonness”,


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM


over 60 per cent said “more understanding for the local and the business partners.” Over 50 per cent emphasize that the foreign experiences “support the creation of openness for change processes with team/organization members of culturally diverse backgrounds.” This result confirms Schein’s suggestion that “traveling more” increases cultural awareness. In comparison to the mentioned aspects about the benefits of foreign experiences, 22 per cent did not have any training and coaching for the foreign deployment and assignment. If they got training, it was mostly in reference to communication skills, such as in language courses (18 per cent), negotiation (18 per cent) and intercultural communication (21 per cent). These responses show that training and coaching programs beside communication skills are not very common. The training and coaching of trans-cultural leadership and trans-cultural competence seem to be inexistent, although the leadership was not mentioned at all in the questionnaire. Reasons why participants neither ask about trans-cultural leadership nor mention it, can only be speculated. 6.4.3

Part III: Leadership in international/intercultural fields

6.4.3.1 Trait qualities of leadership Participants are asked to select five personal qualities among 18 items. They choose “flexible” (73 per cent), “honest” (58 per cent), “fair” (48.5), “trustworthy” (49 per cent), “patient” (49 per cent), and “diplomatic” (43 per cent). Interestingly, “visionary,” “foresight,” “encouraging,” or “risk taking,” which are key aspects attributed to transformational leadership, are scored under 25 per cent. These results demonstrate that traits conveying “risk taking,” “visionary” and “foresight” are presumably perceived as being less “beneficial” in international fields than traits ensuring adaptation. However, elsewhere in the survey, the respondents suggest the would-be leadership as “encouraging” and “visionary.” We have discussed in Section 3.1.1 the difficulties of traits theories. The list of favorable traits gets different relevance depending on the scientists but also depending on the respondents. Therefore, the attributed traits to transformational leadership can vary over a wide range from honest to fair, risk taking, patient, flexible compassionate, visionary, and so on, to encouraging. 6.4.3.2


174

Self, others, and perception orientation

A group of questions is to find out preferences of orientation, and it includes competencies of dealing with others-orientation such as interaction skills, relationship building, compromise ability, and so on.


10/5/2010 10:14:54 AM

Relationship orientation, negotiating skills and cooperation ability are rated over 70 per cent to be of high relevance. This result corresponds to the request of favorable competencies in international fields, which are enhanced in many management programs (Connerley and Pedersen, 2005; Bergemann and Bergemann, 2005). The relevance of security- orientation is judged heterogeneously. Just 7 per cent perceive it as highly relevant in the international fields. The following group of questions is related to self-perceptual orientation, what attributions are perceived as relevant. The responses are differentiated in five graduations of relevance. “Open-minded,” “reliable,” “sincere,” “enthusiastic,” and “self-confidence” are most frequently mentioned (around 70–90 per cent). “Assertiveness” and “directive” are rated as being of less relevance (around 60–75 per cent). Othersorientation such as “sensibility”, “respect for others”, “empathy for others”, and “commitment” get rated more highly (around 70–90 per cent) than perceptual orientation such as “sense-giving” (60 per cent). According to development and change (see Sections 2.4, 3.5, 4.4, and 5.5) “sense-giving” orientation is quite relevant in leadership development. In the same direction, “inspiring,” “convincing,” “integrator,” “participative,” and “supportive” are notions associated with transformational leadership. Here in the survey they are rated in the middle field. While these results are by no means discouraging, they do indicate presumably that terms such as “sense-giving,” “participative,” “integrator,” “convincing” are difficult to codify, and thus classify. On the other hand, elsewhere in the survey there is a high agreement to the would-be leadership with the characteristics mentioned above. The reason for the difference in responses that can be understood either as contradictory or complementary could be explained in that the participants do not always relate these aspects directly with the would-be leadership, and with the qualities they wish. These examples might give us some information about how important terms and codes have to defined and clarified by applying them directly to the transformational, or here to the trans-cultural leadership development. Leadership in international fields should go beyond the ability of ensuring harmonious interaction by creating an atmosphere of trust. The stabilization is recognized as important, but as a precondition for transformational processes in which participants involve and motivate each other in the collective construction of a common “new” emerging culture. Leaders have here a pre-eminent key function and must therefore be more than open-minded and reliable. By being inspiring and convincing integrators they support the process toward “trans-culture”.




10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM

176


A group of questions focus on the “would-be” behaviors of leadership in international or intercultural fields. In this part the participants are asked to rate their agreements to several examples of leadership’s actions. The statements of the would-be leaders are related predominantly to a certain leadership style, here to the description of transformational and trans-cultural leadership. Interestingly, the answers moved in general in the field of highly agreed. It is difficult to say whether these responses favor the tacit leadership style, as no other styles are suggested. Nevertheless, the level of high agreement suggests great potential for the tacit one. Here for example, we observe that statements such as “The leader should create an environment in which team/ organization members can give and receive trust and respect” receives most agreement (72 per cent), followed by “The leader should represent the vision by his/her being and doing,” and “The leader should listen receptively to team/organization members’ ideas and suggestions,” both with an agreement of 62 per cent. “The leader should motivate team/ organization members to achieve goals by giving meaning and vision”, and “The leader should provide an environment which allows team/ organization members to explore resources and request resources from each other as the source of enrichment” get a good value of around 70 per cent. In Chapters 3, 4, and 5 we have described the conditions: First an affective atmosphere of trust and enrichment must be established, where people learn from each other; this is ensured by the leader’s being a model of “walking the talk,” and by doing so he/she is supporting members in their development. The participants’ agreement to the above-mentioned statements confirm that certain aspects of the transformational and trans-cultural leadership concept are thought of as favorable. In reference to other parts of the survey, we have noticed that “inspiring,” “convincing,” “integrator,” “participative,” and “supportive” are not highly scored in comparison to the statements in this part. We draw the assumptions that cultural exchange aims foremost at understanding and respecting each other and less at transformative learning process. “Success and achievement should be recognized and rewarded collectively and less individually” gets a rate under 60 per cent. It is understandable that this statement is difficult to evaluate, and thus to apply to trans-cultural leadership concepts. To enhance team spirit, collective reward is essential (see Sections 3.1 and 5.4), however, the individual consideration (see Section 3.2) refers to the leader’s behavior and tells about the relationship between him/her and the subordinate


6.4.3.3 The would-be leadership


10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM


(see Section 5.1). The recognition of individual needs is considered as an important motivation driver; however, for collective experience of success such as transformation the collective learning process should be more focused. Hence, collective celebration and reward should be more practiced. Coaching and training in specific difficult situations

The final part of rating questions refers to the statements the participants judge as difficult but important in their international practices, and whether they find coaching and training as necessary in the suggested specific situations. In comparison to the other parts of questions on the would-be leadership, a few leadership tasks are perceived by the managers as quite or very difficult. The responses range generally around difficult. This observation might point to the participants’ optimistic attitudes of feasibility and their belief in manageability, which confirms the positive quality of self-confidence. In general, coaching and training is scored as necessary; however, the necessity is not always over-emphasized. For example, the action of “opening team/organization members’ sensitivity towards multiple perspectives and aspects of a situation” is rated between difficult and quite difficult, and with the same rate coaching and training is accepted. Faced with statements such as “promote a culture of supportive and participative collaboration,” and “facilitate team/organization members’ ownership of the change process and its outcomes” the participants agreed with the situation’s difficulty and with the same rate for the need of coaching and teaching. “Promotion of the willingness and continuous learning among the team/ organization members” is perceived as difficult, the same value can be drawn for “the establishment of an environment of mutual respect.” On the other hand, the rate for coaching “the establishment of an environment of mutual respect” is perceived as relevant, but less important than the “promotion of the willingness and continuous learning.” Similar observation is made with the statement “establish feelings of interconnectedness and interdependency”; it is rated as difficult, but the need of coaching is perceived as less necessary. However, in contrast to the other statements so far, “setting clear structure of position, role, task and status” has a low rate of the estimation of difficulty. In comparison to the last statement, “provide clear plan and criteria for what is expected of the team/organization” is perceived as more difficult. The need of coaching and training is expressed and shown in comparison to other statements with less variation. We can assume that statements referring to technical skills appear more clear and concrete, whereas statements


6.4.3.4


10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM


related to social skills, which are elusive, such as “feelings of interconnectedness and interdependency,” or “ownership of the change process,” are more difficult to interpret, and thus to evaluate and to rate the importance that training and development might bring. Although the need of formation is in general not over-emphasized, the results in this part still show that a range of concerns of improvement is shared by the participants. The result can be understood positively that leaders need support of formation. Furthermore, we have discussed in the preceding chapters that good leaders are perpetual learners; and not always knowing the answer is an indicator of self-insight. On the other hand, organizational change is not an individual matter. Hence, individual leadership development cannot be detached from a learning organization ensuring continuous improvement on the collective level, which conversely fosters the individual development. 6.4.4

Part IV: Open questions and comments

Linked to the above concerns of the need of coaching and training, I am interested to learn about what is subjectively experienced as difficult but manageable, and how the participants have handled these situations. Here, I present some statements or suggestions made by the participants. 6.4.4.1

Balancing self-perception versus external ascription

Responses such as “be yourself and not try to be someone else” and “be flexible towards different views of others and possible outcomes while meeting others” correspond with positive leadership traits such as “authentic and honest,” as well as with “flexible,” “empathic,” or “encouraging.” We are aware that these notions, used in the survey, embrace a large continuum of behavioral interpretations. Being authentic, honest, flexible, or empathic might not always protect one from external ascriptions, which reflect stereotypes, prejudices, and asymmetric power issues resulting from long historical processes. In reference to this observation a participant shared that people from Eastern Europe tend to “listen” to him/her, and related this observation to his/her membership of Western Europe, which is – according to his/ her opinion – attributed to “the rich.” Whether this observation can be understood as advantageous is an open question, as contradictory or complementary experiences are made. Other participants experienced how difficult it is for European persons to accept “African” ways of doing things. Similar opinion is expressed such as that European persons are “in many ways ‘stuck’ in Western modes of doing business”


178


10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM

or “even as an international organization, this is a challenge not to get stuck in Western mode.” Some of these examples illustrate self-perception and how others perceive oneself. They tell about the sensitivity of the environment, or of the external ascriptions, which could cause misunderstanding, misjudgment, interpersonal conflicts, and furthermore harden asymmetric power relations, even though one might have a positive self-perception. These observations are important for the development of certain leadership qualities. Introspection, self-awareness, and self-insight are surely required in order not to get lost either in external ascriptions or in misunderstanding, conflicts, and unreflected power distribution (see Section 3.4). In spite of personal interest for others, misunderstanding, projection or unspoken asymmetric power relation can disable deeper understanding for each other and a positive learning from each other. 6.4.4.2

Accepting the responsibility of leadership

The necessity of the leader’s full attendance and attention was emphasized in the sense that one should be aware of what is going on in the team. The explanation was: “leadership cannot be delegated, a leader shall not be absent too often.” This implies that leaders have to give the feeling they are there for the people and are concerned about their people’s doing and being. Being part of the culture they represent, leaders are primarily responsible for the meaning they want to convey to their organization and community. Showing full presence should transmit the message that they care for organizational development and that they are there to steer the boat (see Sections 5.3 and 5.5). 6.4.4.3 Creating an environment of trust and learning The authenticity and integrity of the leader give credibility and facilitate the process of building trust (see Sections 4.3 and 5.3). When people trust in the leader, they will follow or walk with him/her. The leader is modeling the way towards a trustful relationship and creates an atmosphere of mutual confidence. The following advice was mentioned: “to keep confidence on both sides should be your guide!” Another example followed: “I realized that creating an open, good working atmosphere where everybody can feel safe to perform highly is very important to understand each other.” The concept of trans-cultural leadership emphasizes the relevance of collective commitment to goal achievement. When people understand the meaning and the need of the vision and goal, they not only feel “attracted” by the organizational culture, but also they feel safe.




10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM


The experience of sharing the vision brings feelings of ownership (see Section 5.4). To develop a common culture, leaders start within their group with creating the joy of sharing and building relationships. Such experience was told: “as President of a multinational university network I found the main problem was to introduce many important and necessary changes without making the members feel I was pushing a personal agenda. I used two strategies for this. First, I prepared a very clear document setting out the things I felt had to be changed, and made sure that there was widespread discussion of this so that everyone understood why these changes were needed (or at least why others felt they were needed, if they remained unconvinced themselves). Second, I would break down certain tasks into a whole series of steps, and ask for the members to discuss and decide on these one by one, in succession; this gave them the chance to express views at each stage. Basically both strategies were designed to make the decision-making transparent, and to ensure that people felt they were engaged in the process.” Here we observe a good balance between relationship and task orientations according to the situation and the needs of the group. A leader can be directive for a certain action, and at the same time can support participative process by involving members for certain task fulfillment. Small steps ensure little wins. The feelings of success stabilize and create an atmosphere of sharing of positive experiences, and strengthen cohesion (see Sections 4.4 and 5.4). These steps are usually created and broken down in little tasks, as another example was told: “If there are many different cultural backgrounds in a team, it is important that the participants, first learn to know each other personally through some practical doings (...) When they have learnt to know more about each other they will be more motivated for the training, cooperation and accepting the differences.” This experience shows how to create a learning environment conductive to accepting differences. People learn to support each other by doing and communicating things together, and they learn to trust. When a climate of trust is established, the group can handle differences and difficulties better. The challenge is less perceived as a risk; challenge turns into a trigger for inquisitiveness and improvement. 6.4.4.4


180

Overcoming irritations and difficulties

Language is mentioned by some participants as difficult. A word might be understood differently, depending on the different connotations, cultural and educational backgrounds, and linguistic skills of the interactors. So for communication a lot of time is taken for explaining to


10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM

each other what one has meant. On the other hand a certain word or action of another culture might have a different meaning; here, besides cultural knowledge, sensitivity is required. Such experience was shared: “In Japan, the process of decision taking is a very sensitive area. Team leaders need patience and lots of time. Progress goes not fast with pressure. Sticking to protocol may be contraproductive. Progress of work is fast, if all members agree to the proposed aims of the work.” The surveyed managers notice that the difference comes up most when the daily task concerns setting priorities and grade of relevance. This causes often some conflict of enforcing values. How to prevent conflict of different priorities was proposed in the following experience: “On a day to day basis a simple email with a request for action is implemented differently in different regions. Some act immediately and pragmatically upon the request formulated in the email, others need additional explanations or even ‘hand holding’ to implement the request. If the request is important a simple clearly structured email followed by a coordination meeting where things can be discussed and questions asked has been successful.” A similar suggestion was made: “Repeated contacts and reminders can help to establish a common set of rules.” To sum up, the examples described by the participants emphasize the relevance of communication. Clear communication is necessary to anticipate misunderstanding and to enhance collective comprehension; this promotes the process of sharing of meaning and finally values. Patience and sensitivity are required from the leader. A clear set of rules and common orientation must be constantly communicated and mutually accepted, this requires leadership in full awareness and presence (see Sections 3.5 and 5.5). 6.4.4.5

Understanding why they behave as they do

Overcoming irritations and difficulties presupposes openness for others’ backgrounds and concerns. Through understanding one can better adapt one’s behavior to the situation and circumstance. Or in other words, the way to understand is to be understanding. The Chinese character for listening is composed of ears, eyes, and heart (see figure 6.1) and could be associated to active listening. Understanding and listening are a sensual act. Perception and awareness are never value-free (see Section 7.5). Hence, it depends on us what value and meaning we want to give to the persons we are listening to. This act is known by the term, empathy through active listening (Rogers, 1970). By doing so, we give ourselves the meanings in our action which we are finally responsible for.




10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM

182

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation Listening is when you use...

HEART to give undivided attention. Figure 6.1 Chinese Listening Source: Simons, George F. et al. (1993) Transcultural Leadership. Empowering the Diverse Workforce. Zürich, Gulf Publishing. pp. 37.

Here, an example of a participant: “When I started my assignment in China some 20 years ago, I knew little about the local business culture. Intuitively, I listened carefully and had a lot of questions. I did not want to be arrogant and a ‘know-it-all’. I wanted to understand the local situation, the local people, and my partners in the company. This approach to the new culture and working environment was one of the keys for a successful assignment at a time when the world knew little about China.” The experience the participant has made is important to approach a different cultural system. We have outlined in Chapters 3 and 5 that leaders must lead themselves first (self-management and self-mastery) before they can lead others. Leaders must discover the underlying reasons why their people behave in the way they have learnt. Knowing learning habits facilitates the creation of a learning organization (see Section 4.3). 6.4.4.6

Difficult situations – sometimes unsolvable even with coaching

Language deficiency, the creation of trust, different understanding of leadership styles according to cultural preferences, personal interest, racism, discrimination, religious and status differences, gender issues, dealing with bribery, and so forth are listed as difficult and sometimes as unsolvable situations. Issues such as religion, gender, and racism are delicate to approach, especially when other people in leading positions block the process, for example (given by a participant): “When senior staff members practice racism.” Others recalled the responsibility


EYES

EARS


10/5/2010 10:14:55 AM

of leadership and explained: “In the UK there remains a serious problem of racism and discrimination. This is becoming worse with the economic crisis as people perceive competition for jobs to be unfair. This requires constantly informing people of the reality of the situation rather accepting myths put out by the media.” Related to gender issue experiences we were told, “you may have a team of women who need for their participation their husbands’ acceptance. In these cases it is better, first to organize something for the husbands. When the husbands get to know and trust the leader or leaders and they accept her or them, they even motivate their wives to the cooperation and reflection.” Religious differences and issues of status are perceived as sometimes unsolvable. Situations which were perceived most difficult and nearly unsolvable were mentioned when the underlying problem could not be communicated openly and visibly. We remember Schein’s concept of invisible, unconscious basic assumptions. These assumptions are taken for granted in the group, the community, in the organization, and in the nation. If leaders are not conscious about the unconscious basic assumptions, they will be the prey of the “culture.” They will become part of the problem which is solved as the system is used to. Solutions might be found, but solving the solution as the system is used to, is in fact not solved. When a problem is created collectively, it should not be solved individually. Thus, in the search of a solution leaders should prevent from becoming isolated in their solution and decision-making process (see Section 7.3). International and intercultural fields are the best place where leaders discover new ways of perceiving and solving problems, first by going beyond their cultural frames through exploring diversity as their resource of creativity. Consequently, leaders need the support of other leaders besides their community and be in constant interactions to inform, clarify, and build relationships and networks to find collective solutions (see Section 5.2). The examples above show how difficult the situations are, when the basic assumptions are kept invisible. In this case, emotional resilience, conscientiousness, integrity but also interpersonal sensitivity and motivation are highly required (see Section 3.4).



6.5 “Survey can measure neither culture nor leadership” Results are based on the online survey sent to managers of different profit and non-profit organizations in business, education, and social fields. They are managers working with people of different nations and


10/5/2010 10:14:56 AM


cultures at home and abroad. The results give a snapshot of what managers considered as important based on their personal experiences. The correlations between data collection and theories follow somehow the logic of induction, what traits are perceived as beneficial, and whether the tacit transformational and trans-cultural leadership could be the would-be leadership. What we do not know from the survey is the preferences of female managers. Many surveys indicate that female managers perceive themselves as more likely to use transformational leadership than male managers. They take an interest in the personal needs of their staff, encourage self-development, use more participative decision-making styles and give feedback more often. They also recognize team achievements more than male (Hamlin et al., 2001). This is an issue that should be focused on. Although many interpretations could be drawn from the results, however, the responses do not give us enough clues to the value of the dimensions of: ● ● ● ●

Self: competence and mastery Group: trans-cultural synergy Organization: learning culture Environment: development and change.

This remains to be observed in an organization in transformational process. Schein emphasized in many of his works for change management that surveys couldn’t measure culture of an organization, especially, when one is much involved in the organizational culture, or even as an external consultant becoming partner of the organizational culture. Schein explained (2009) his observations as follows: ●

●

●

●

●

“You don’t know what to ask, what questions to put on the survey, because you don’t know at the outset what issues or dimensions are the important ones in your corporate culture and subcultures in relation to the problem you are trying to solve. You will risk measuring only superficial characteristics of the culture because survey instruments cannot get at the deeper tacit assumptions. Individual respondents will misinterpret or misunderstand some questions and, therefore, will provide unreliable information. You will not be able to perceive the interaction and patterning in the culture and the subcultures. It is very inefficient to try to infer shared assumptions from individual responses because of individual differences in how questions are perceived.


184


10/5/2010 10:14:56 AM


The survey or interview process raises questions for participants and builds expectations to which you may not be willing or able to respond.” (2009:79)

If we cannot measure culture, the same can be said for leadership. This critical reference is to say that although leadership development would contribute more benefits to an organization’s or society’s development, it is a fact that the outcomes of development and transformation are difficult to measure in quantitative data in the way a society is used to gain quick and clear responses. This is “illusionary,” especially when long-term results should be strived for. On the other hand, qualitative evaluation requires clear definition of the context and not merely high reflection of the researcher’s relationship with the subjects observed, but also high reflection from those wishing to understand the results. Consequently, in a volatile world under pressure of success maximization and quick results due to the belief of competitive efficiency, an investment in long-term analysis as well as in long-term sustainable solution often gets marginalized in the perception of liquidability, hence of practicability and feasibility. Still, the collected participants’ opinions give some substantial conclusions. They tell us about their considerations on: 1. the relevance of the adaptation of the leaders’ behaviors in a multicultural environment, which presupposes a certain self-awareness 2. the understanding and the relevance of bridging different perspectives 3. the relevance of handling differences, interests, and conflicts 4. the creation of common basics of meanings, and of implementing basics of orientation 5. the relevance of the role of communication across barriers 6. the relevance of the management of the relationship between the corporate and the local 7. the understanding of the impact of external forces, such as national socio-cultural, legal, economic, political, and technological dimensions.


●

Finally, any conducted survey of any duration should remind us that sustainable viability should not become stuck on a wishful vision. Action is required.


10/5/2010 10:14:56 AM


10/5/2010 10:14:56 AM

Part III


Practice-Based Proposal for Leadership of Transformation


10/5/2010 12:44:17 PM


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

7

Many organizations have been subjected to environmental change, which puts them under pressure to do something to change their situations. But still organizational culture often gets ignored to be looked at in accounting for organizational performance. For transformation expert trainers and consulting firms are asked to develop organizational change programs. Increasing amounts of management literature providing best practice guidance on how to implement change management successfully fill out bookshelves and bookstores. However, in spite of good advice and programs many organizational changes fail, because management fails to raise awareness of the opportunity of transformation as a sustainable survival strategy. Many organizations have fallen asleep and need a wake-up call to relearn how to survive and not go on “burning out.” Many surveys report that managers are generally insufficiently skilled in change agency (Hamlin et al., 2001). The purpose of this chapter is not to collect recipes of different organizational change and development programs, but to emphasize the need of setting seed of the awareness that transformation is a natural process and of learning how to get revival. For transformational process, strong leadership is required to challenge uncertainty and not to avoid the confrontation. Flexibility, innovativeness, creativeness and at the same time consistency and resilience are many qualities of leadership that seem to be designated for “riding” on changes. Organizations have therefore to implement “strong” leadership development in their business strategies. Facing with the drivers of globalization and internationalization (see Section 1.1) trans-cultural leadership and competence are suggested as the new emerging approach to preparing and guiding people through the transitions of change, and moreover to determine the direction of change. Accordingly, this chapter concentrates on the


Trans-Cultural Leadership Development

189


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM


development of leadership as a part of business strategy. Leaders who have acquired trans-cultural competence are able to empower others for trans-cultural processes. They are mentors of the transformation. An organization concerned about increasing efficiency needs to develop a positive attitude of perpetual improvement, and therefore provides the necessity to create a supportive learning environment. Trans-cultural competence can only be acquired in a group process through mutual interactions, where meanings and purposes are created, and where every body can identify with the collective “reason-to-be-more.” Cultural awareness, in the sense of getting deep knowledge of the system to get insight of why there is the urgency to be more, is suggested as the first step to opening up the process of cultural and organizational change.

7.1 Organizational leadership development as business survival strategy Driven by globalization, international relationships become increasingly important in the competitive landscape for economic viability and survival not just for business but also for non-profit organizations. According to Cameron and Quinn, “No organization in the 1990s would boast about its constancy, sameness, or status quo standing compared to ten years ago. Stability is interpreted more often as stagnation than steadiness, and organizations that are not in the business of change and transition are generally viewed as recalcitrant (...) The conditions in which organizations operate demand a response without which organizational demise is a frequent result” (1999:6). The question is not to decide whether or not to change, but how and what to change in order to survive. Cameron and Quinn listed several examples of companies downsizing, reengineering, and TQM implementing in the last years. However, they discovered all these approaches to change had a checkered success record, because the culture of the organization remained the same. “This dependence of organizational improvement on culture change is due to the fact that when the values, orientations, definitions, and goals stay constant – even when procedures and strategies are altered – the organization returns quickly to the status quo. Without an alternation of the fundamental goals, values, and expectations of the organizations, change remains superficial and short-term in duration” (Cameron and Quinn, 1999:8). But how to make organizational change? An organization’s culture is made up by what is valued, which remained undebatable most of the time. Thus, the organization needs a “wake-up call” (Scholtes, 1998), and leaders willing to pave the


190


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

191

way. Based on several investigations of surveys Anderson and Anderson (2005) believed that companies invested in coaching leaders get the most benefits, in terms of ROI, as leaders who were coached in four levels of insights created strategic value for the organization. According to them these four insights should be reflective, emotional, intuitive, and inspirational. Training and coaching programs are valuable ways to raise awareness; some companies have their own in-house training programs for years. However, even then, this is not a guarantee for change and value creation, as long as the organization keeps its old cultural structure, and the in-house training programs maintain the prevailing ideology that people have internalized in their habits. Considering the booming market of training and coaching programs offered by a correspondingly increasing market of consulting firms in the past decade, is this not astonishing? Accordingly, it is not the question that leaders have to be trained or coached, but what kind of cultural change and leadership training and coaching is necessary. The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL®) surveyed 2,200 leaders from 15 organizations in three countries (USA, Singapore, India) between 2006 and 2008. They revealed that leadership competencies in current organizations are insufficient for meeting the ever-increasing complexity and interdependencies of the 21st century. Furthermore, the CCL ® found out that regardless of the countries, industries, and organizational levels, where the participating leaders in the survey come from, they all think about effective leadership similarly. The surveyed leaders felt they are not adequately prepared for the future. Leading people, strategic planning, inspiring commitment, and managing change were considered as the most important future skills as they were at the same time among the weakest competencies for today’s leaders (Leslie, 2009). The CCL® experiences align with the surveyed managers’ opinions presented in previous chapters of this book. There are some consensuses in respect of the image of the would-be leader. The “new” leader should know how to lead people beyond their differences and to inspire them for the goal’s commitment, based on the creation of a common new culture, which implicitly means cultural change, in the sense of bridging diversity, addressing power issues, attracting and sustaining stakeholders’ involvement for change, and supporting the direction of value creation. Another survey was conducted between 2008 and 2009 by the CCL® with 128 senior executives with more than 15 years of management experience and responsibility. Senior executives recognized the difficulty and relevance of “boundary spanning,” and consequently the




10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

192


1. collaboration across functions 2. empowering employees at all levels 3. developing cross-organizational learning capabilities. These explorations agree with the experiences described in previous chapters that leaders have to develop capability to cross boundaries by synergizing boundaries when everybody is looking in the same direction of a vision. Thus, leaders must be able to work across and beyond boundaries, including boundaries of disciplines, departments, regions, etc. Trans-cultural leadership is the new leadership paradigm to respond to increasing interconnections with network structure, crossfunctional processes and synergistic cooperations (Funakawa, 1997). As the CCL® concludes in their research as follows: “To create direction, alignment, and commitment across boundaries leaders need to work together across differences that traditionally divide them. Spanning boundaries provides not only a challenge for leaders, but also a significant opportunity for new learning and development. In reaching across boundaries, leaders learn to broaden their perspectives, to practice new collaborative skills and to develop the behaviors needed to foster crossorganizational innovation and transformation” (Yip et al., 2009:18). Many research projects run by the CCL® have shown that deep and sustained organizational development requires an organizational leadership strategy. The investment in leadership should be incorporated into the overall business strategy. Like business strategies, leadership strategies are based on a preceding thorough analysis of the current situation and the target state in the future. The first step is to identify the drivers of the business strategy and how to position the organization in order to take advantage of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the marketplace. This step is necessary in constructing the leadership strategy, as it is about where to invest money in leaders and their development, which finally has an impact on the business’s success. The CCL® proposed several fundamental questions to identify key drivers. The next step is to assess with data collection the current leadership situation and compare it to the desired future. The results collected from


potential for synergistic outcomes. With boundaries, they meant differences caused by diversity, generational gaps, different mind-sets and interests, competitive thinking, and so on. To overcome boundaries, Yip et al. (2009) summarized three top priorities that should be set up by leadership:


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

193

the analysis between the current and future states of leadership in the organization provide responses of actions that must be taken to close the gaps. The gap analysis also produces clear implications for recruiting, selection, and other personal development, talent management systems, policies, and processes (Pasmore and Lafferty, 2009). Schein (2004) accentuated the need for business strategy with the concept of organizational culture and leadership. For him, the analysis of the current situation should first identify cultural assumptions, and then assess them in terms of whether they are a strength or a constraint on what the organization is trying to do. Although practice-based research is useful to guide organizational policy, culture cannot be assessed merely by means of surveys or questionnaires (see Section 6.5). Organizational development depends on the staff development that addresses the attitudes and beliefs towards challenges and change by making the purpose worthwhile, engaging different systems, clarifying functions, capabilities, roles, and setting up structure, and providing personnel promotion. A strategy of continuous improvement is to ensure an organization providing perpetual learners and leaders: “The process of learning must ultimately be made part of the culture, not just the solution to any given problem” (Schein, 2004:395). The organizational commitment does not just refer to diversity; it is a commitment to systemic thinking as well as “to cultural analysis for understanding and improving the world” (Schein, 2004:402). In the same direction, the CCL ® emphasized that the leadership development strategy should be thought of systemically, and goes beyond the development of curriculum composed of programs. It aspires towards strategies promoting perpetual improvement of competencies as in figure 7.1. Consequently, the organization’s ability to sustain and survive depends on its ability of continuous improvement by creating an environment of lifelong learning leadership. The lifelong learning leadership embraces the overall learning ability of formal and informal leaders in the cooperative support of organizational viability and survival to make the difference. The CCL® explain the need of leadership with five reasons based on their experiences:



1. Bigger minds are needed to keep pace with rapidly changing reality. Reality is leaping ahead of our collective development. We need new thinking and new ways of working together in order to keep up. Most organizations are behind in developing what they need to move


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

Business Strategy

Leadership Strategy Leadership Culture and Mentoring System

Organizational Development Purpose

Systems

Structure

Functions

Continual Improvement Practices and Procedures

Trans-Cultural Competence

Figure 7.1

Vision Goal

Roles Skills/Capabilities Competencies

Leadership Development Strategy

up the hierarchy of culture. It takes an even greater stretch to thrive in the face of change. 2. Change requires new mind-sets, not just new skills. Organizations have become savvy developers of individual leader competencies. In doing so, they have over-relied on the human resource function to manage change through individual skill development. Executives have not considered the need to advance both individual and collective leadership mindsets. 3. Hidden assumptions and beliefs must be unearthed. Unexamined beliefs control an organization and prevent any meaningful change. Years of valuing hierarchy, status, authority and control – even if unstated – can lead to assumptions and behaviors that are out of date, unnecessary, unhelpful, and at odds with stated goals and strategic direction.


The Hunger for Change

Business Outcomes /Results


Return of Investment

194

4. Organizational change requires leaders to change. Change the culture – change yourself. That’s the new reality. Senior executives who move the needle toward organizational transformation also experience significant personal transformation. That commitment to personal change is a fundamental part of their readiness to take on the leadership and management challenges of change for a sustainable future.


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM


195

Leaders must be trained and coached to increase their personal, interactive, and methodological qualities and the quality of knowledge (see, Sections 5.3 and 5.4). When they become leaders they are the mentors assigned with the mission to increase competencies in others. The conclusion we draw here is that organizational change requires individual and collective learning ability, based on the collective ambition of perpetual improvement in trans-cultural competence, and which pushes the individuals in the search of transformation toward a culture of fulfilling life assuring sustainable survival. Trans-cultural transformation includes therefore trans-cultural leadership and trans-cultural competence. Thus, companies and organizations need to identify and to recruit managers designated to challenge the challenges anticipatorily by using reliable strategies, planning, and methods for the training development of trans-cultural leadership at all levels. And once that happens, it will take the organizations time to acquire the leadership they need to be effective and sustainable in a competitive landscape of viability and survival.

Exhibit 7.1 The ROI of Leadership and Coaching: Three Key Insights for Value Creation According to Anderson and Anderson’s (2005) research, insight is the key enabler for transformational change. However, they discovered that only 15 per cent of all leaders progressed through all levels of the here below described insights. The reasons for the other 85 per cent who did not make it were variable. ● ●

●

●

Level 1: Reflective insight opens up the possibilities for change. Level 2: Emotional insight comes from learning how to discern and decipher the emotional context of situations. Level 3: Intuitive insight affords the leader the opportunities to tap into their own intuitive knowing. Level 4: Inspirational insight enables the leader to act with the faith and courage to achieve major accomplishments.


5. It takes a new kind of hard work. Stop calling them “soft” skills. Developing new beliefs and mind-sets is hard, and the leadership practices they generate will permanently alter the way leadership is experienced and accomplished. Developing a new mindset is much harder than managing spreadsheets and the next restructuring. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. (McGuire et al., 2009 :5)


10/5/2010 12:44:18 PM

196


Reflection and discussion issues ●

●

What coaching and training programs would you suggest to assist leaders and organizations to increase and cultivate their insights? Do you see any similar results between Anderson and Anderson’s discovery and those responses delivered in Part II?

●

●

●

Anderson, Diana & Merrill Anderson (2005). The ROI of Leadership and Coaching: Three Key Insights for Value Creation. MetrixGlobal [online]. Available at www.coachfederation.org/research-education/icf-research-portal/ research-portal--reports/. Freeman, F.H., Schwartz, M.K., Axtman, K.M. (1998). Leadership Education Source Book of Courses and Programs. Greensboro, CCL Press. Tichy, Noel & Eli Cohen (1997). The Leadership Engine. How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level. New York, Harper Collins.

7.2 Mentoring trans-cultural competence for international outlook An international outlook implies being open for new mind-sets and solutions to join actively and creatively in the process of working on challenges and changes. Regardless of the size and location of an organization, the workforce, the local communities, learners, staff and governing boards come from different places and backgrounds with different orientations and emotions. Within this context and with regard to the discussion in our previous chapters, we suggest that organizations nowadays are in high need of leaders with trans-cultural competence throughout their ranks. Moreover, when the environment is supportive and recognizes the need of continuous learning, the conditions for positive transformation are set, and positive outcomes are certain. However, this positive environment must be stimulated and created; somebody must take the lead. “Culture is the result of a complex group learning process that is only partially influenced by leader behavior. But if the group’s survival is threatened because elements of its culture have become maladapted, it is ultimately the function of leadership at all levels of the organization to recognize and do something about this situation. It is in this sense that leadership and culture are conceptually intertwined” (Schein, 2004:11). Organizations and leaders striving for “viability and survival“ have the courage of confrontation against what is taken for granted and the


Further reading


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM

197

motivation to go beyond what one has known and done so far as solutions. International fields and diversity seem to provide that outlook. Multiple perspectives should render more understanding than misunderstanding, more knowledge than ignorance. As Watzlawick et al. (1974) noticed, “when your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.” Multicultural teams might be the source of conflicts, but they could also be the route to the roots of deeper insight; as long as conflicts and disorientations are not solved with more conflicts and disorientations. Seeing is more than perceiving, when foreseeing; wide prospection introspects retrospective future-spection. Accordingly, organizations and leaders are willing to learn to how to “see” and enhance this learning ability in their community and environment by giving them the trust in their development capacity: “If we assume that everyone is highly motivated and competent, we will act in accordance with that assumption by encouraging people to work at their own pace and in their own way” (Schein, 2004:33). Managers of all ranks need to know which motivational techniques work well overseas. In fact, there are relatively few universal approaches of the motivation theories. What managers have to know is that underlying principles of needs are the same above all behavioral differences. Managers and leaders have to be skillful to frame the principles in such a way that the desire of the local values gets reflected so that their chosen learning and mentoring strategies become effective, at least to an extent. We suggested that managers explicitly take cultural variables into account in designing their reward systems and motivational strategies. Specifically, we suggested a series of four action steps that international managers can take to develop synergistic solutions to motivation issues. These steps involve efforts by managers to understand their own value systems, as well as employees’, before tackling motivation issues. Identifying underlying values and cultural frames of reference should create an appreciation for alternative perspectives, something that can then be used in generating motivational approaches that accomplish management goals in ways that are sensitive to local cultural values and dynamics. (McFarlin and Sweeney, 2005:375) In these fast-moving and changing times, the only way to cope with increasing diversity, and thus ambiguities and anxieties, is not just learning what and how to learn, but also to know the reason for becoming master of the situation. Why should an organization or a community commit themselves to a challenging attempt to understand others and thus to shift the ways they have always believed in and behave accordingly? Or why should one do something else one has been successfully




10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


used to and believes this is the tool to see or rather not to perceive the problem? When the learning community understands the reasons to be more than what they have learnt by then, a learning environment is created to become more creative and productive in the sense of sustainably productive. Recognizing the interdependency and the necessity of sharing knowledge and experiences for a better life quality, a collective can be organized to move from local thinking to more global reflection in order to be active on the local level. Coaching and mentoring are ideal ways to help organizations to multiply leaders and enhance trans-cultural leadership throughout all levels. When companies use senior managers who are open for improvement, not simply as supervisors loyal to the companies, but rather as inquisitive and adaptive mentors to contribute to long-term leadership development, they provide professional networking opportunities due to their knowledge transfer, but above all due to their transformative learning ability and collaboration capability across the organization. Moreover, a good implementation of a mentoring system establishes the foundation of continuous improvement and thus builds a pool of innovative and entrepreneurial members ensuring the survival of the organization. Good leaders are more mentors than leaders; they prove qualities of mentors. In other words, they are accessible by listening, motivating, caring, being supportive, and encouraging, without neglecting their responsibility and duty as leaders (see figure 7.2). Both mentors and mentees are committed to sharing responsibility and thus of ensuring each other’s growth. The benefits enjoy enhancement of leadership and management, and recruiting talent pool at all levels for the value creation at large. Mentoring is a process leading others through giving self and others meaning; it is not just passing on information and knowledge. Although the mentor pays attention to individuals, the learning setting is in the group. It is a collective experience which strengthens cohesion for organizational goals’ achievement, although based on the enrichment of multicultural activities and creativities. While mentoring trans-cultural leadership for transformation, the mentors themselves are also in a learning process and in a weaving network of empowering attachment among mentees. The success is the result of collective outcomes due to learning processes supported best by the group self where the seed of growth is set (see Section 5.2). The stages of the learning process are on a continuum in the development of a learning organization, which finally produces a learning environment embracing other stakeholders’ groups, then some stakeholders become shareholders. The group’s growth has an impact on the individual improvement of competence – empowering others is empowering self.


198


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


Mentor’s committment

Mentee Taking selfresponsibility

Mentoring

Clarifies and discussses options and expectations to achieve goals

Objective Task orientation Method Information

Shares knowledge and encourages positive experiences

Objective Relationship Method orientatation Dialogue

Encourages to make decisions and take responsibility, by providing appropriate questions and feedbacks

Objective Insight orientation Method Questions and feedbacks

Mentee’s committment Listens and accepts guidance

Shows motivation and willingness to develop a good relationship Wants to be challenged and grow

The balance of relationship: Reliable, trustworthy and confidentiality Mentoring Process is based on: 1) setting goals, 2) providing feedbacks and raising questions for observation and self analysis, 3) ensuring with feedback loops for action planning

Figure 7.2 Mentoring Trans-Cultural Leadership

Good leaders keep increasing their trans-cultural leadership competence, this through mentoring (see Section 5.3). A good learning atmosphere where active reflection and reflective action can take place helps leaders and potential leaders learn to “see” how their behavior influences those they work with. The best way to learn is to arrive at one’s own insight and to become the owner of the learning and changing success – the mirror of the self is in the exploration with the mentoring leader and the group (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5). Strong leaders surround themselves with talented people and bring out the best in them, as these ones bring best out of them. It is a mutual empowering process. Accordingly, transcultural leadership is responsible for the progress starting within oneself and by exchange and interactive relationships passing over to the group, the organization’s community, then to the environment’s competitors and customers. Only then does the virtuous circle go round. When a learning organization pools trans-cultural leadership, it is not just empowering the organization’s members, but it creates value going beyond the organization’s boundaries. The organization becomes the master of trans-cultural leadership and is thus modeling the way for other organizations to follow. Trans-cultural leadership is believed to be a “transformational way of survival“ in a competitive landscape of full individual self-preservations; it transforms the landscape into a cohesive landscape of increasing multiple options of shared searching for common viability by going beyond self-preservation potential.


Mentor Taking learning responsibility Two-way learning process for others

199


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


Mentoring is more than just giving directive instruction or passing on relevant information. Mentoring leaders build confidence through encouraging their mentees to take responsibility for their improvement. They not only give them space and time to attain goals, but also they provide resources and possibilities to increase their insight and self-mastery. One of the many techniques to assist others acquiring self-mastery in order that they become themselves mentors and leaders for others, is the technique of questions. Questions should be simple and clear. However, the most difficult task is how to raise questions that promote an in-depth reflection of system knowledge and thus promote modification of taken-for-granted patterns. Questions should: ● ● ● ● ●

stimulate reflection and thought for self- and other-discovery activate creativity, new ideas or fragmentary innovation for change encourage group interaction to share responsibility and accountability initiate, maintain and create discussion to generate solutions and strategies stir up hidden subjects to make them visible for reflection, thus action for change.

Regarding transformation, questions could be raised to inspire “reasons to be more,” for example, why should we improve and be better for the future? As it should not remain a personal quest, the ‘we’ must be emphasized. Based on my personal experiences, the technique of systemic questions enhances mentees to develop abilities to find strategies and solutions through self-insight in order to modify change that has transformational effects on the system which is going to change. For example, with the technique of systemic hypothesis and circular questions provided by the mentors the mentees explore the knowledge of their behavioral patterns that hinder them to grow and amplify new perspectives in the search of new meaning and solution. Systemic and circular questions perceive the individual as part of the system, therefore the response and solution is inclusive, thus the solution is not just a personal responsibility, but a collective or systemic matter. However, self-mastery and collective transformation coaching is not about technique alone. It is in fact about integrity that change should be in the interest of everybody involved. This integrity should be represented by the leaders themselves to ensure trust and confidence. Further reading and website ●


Exhibit 7.2 The Technique of Questions

Kram, Kathy E. (1985). Mentoring at Work. Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, Scott.

Systemic questioning: www.systemiccoaching.com/training.htm


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


201

Leadership of transformation needs a positive learning environment. In other words, organization members should enjoy sharing knowledge and empower each other for continuous improvement. However, having members in groups or team or division does not necessarily create a collaborative or cooperative community. Here, the manager or leader is coach, mentor, and role model at the same time. The learning process is based on creating meaning through sharing experiences. Though the leaders are of eminent importance, as they initiate, guide, encourage, and intervene, all their interactions remain integrated in the collective process of creation which promotes cooperative learning and collaboration for common goal. Like the teishu in the T-ceremony they are the promoters of aesthetic and ethical actions and interactions (see Section 5.4). Experimental learning and experiences provide more learning potential, the activities focus mainly on “sharing knowledge and experiences,” on “applying and doing things together” and on “listening and explaining to others.” Due to the diverse backgrounds and multiple qualities and competencies in a heterogeneous team and organization the leaders distribute different tasks and specific roles in regard to the members’ resources, without upgrading or devaluing the associations related to the tasks. The leaders observe the group-building process carefully, provide necessary feedback and coach them to develop critical self-awareness in order to go beyond their potential. Like teishu leaders are not outside the process; they join the process in the sense of being the role model. They themselves co-produce trans-cultural competence with their members. T-COM is produced in the interactive performance in which everybody participates. As a role model the leaders empower their followers or members to empower each other. “The power goes round.” It is a shared manifestation of the creative force. To foster an environment of continuous improvement leaders have to equip the teams with elements that create an atmosphere of safety and mutual confidence in order to enhance trust for the common goal (see Section 4.5). Ideas and opinions can be expressed openly and freely, so that creativity can emerge. While activating meaning-making processes, growth in the group is stimulated by each member. Exchanging ideas and experiences beyond differences is now perceived as beneficial for all. Learning to question taken-for-granted behaviors, taking a critical stance on a meta level through experiencing other perspectives is


7.3 Establishing a learning environment for trans-cultural growth


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


appreciated as a resource for innovations and solutions to attain the common goal. The environment provides the members opportunities to experience on their own the necessity of collaboration and cooperation to celebrate each other’s successes (compare also Section 6.4.4.3). By encouraging colleagues to increase understanding for each other, everybody experiences empathy and respect, which reinforce selfesteem and self-confidence. Differences are perceived as resources of empowering inner growth. Cooperative learning in multicultural groups or in an environment of differences can unfold best when all learning styles, associated with multiple intelligences, are appreciated as contributions to ensuring success for all and to generate a pool of creativity (Gardner, 2007). Especially, because of diversity leaders have to provide one direction among possible directions. They use culture as a system of orientation including first of all values and norms. Values and norms of cooperation and cohesion Heterogeneous environment and organization often reflect societal structures. There is not only horizontal diversity, different backgrounds due to different national backgrounds or ethnicity, but also vertical diversity, different backgrounds due to different socio-cultural differentiations. Promoting cooperation and partnership particularly within vertical diversity is not an easy task, especially for those who have been excluded or isolated for a long time, as they do not understand the need of supporting change if their situations are not changed. They have to learn gradually to find trust in others, especially in those who they have been experiencing isolation. Those who have been marginalized need support to give themselves values and voice in order to learn to trust in others, as the hitherto confrontation with exclusion in processes of exchange and change has been gnawing at their self-images. People from dominant cultures have to learn to realize that their values and norms which have been taken for granted and thus the guiding standards by then must not keep on being the norms for solutions (compare Section 6.4.4.1). They are often those who have most difficulties in unlearning their current mental map. Moreover, they are reluctant to share power. When they learn that unlearning is growing for self-mastery; and sharing power is not losing, but gaining more perspectives, they may find the sources of increasing their unanticipated wealth and well-being. Both the marginalized and the dominant have to learn to encounter each other in a process which develops partnership. Both the dominant and the marginalized engage in a process of


202


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM

203

stripping away distrust and disdain for each other. They need new orientations to create a common environment of reciprocal respect and safety. The new orientation must be provided by the leaders having experienced this critical unlearning and developed critical insight. In order to facilitate reciprocal respect leaders introduce in their organization or in their team from the very beginning values and norms enhancing respect and esteem for each other’s being as relevant partners for the common goal’s attainment. Cooperative values could be conveyed in messages such as: ● ● ● ● ●

“Everybody can do something; nobody can do everything.” “Supporting each other is a necessity for the goal’s attainment.” “Everybody has the right to ask others for a contribution.” “Nobody is as smart as all of us together.” “Differences and diversity is our potential to be creative in finding solutions.”

Other norms and values can be added. Also, establishing regular rituals can help the group to pay explicit attention to the set of norms and values. Collective commitments to statements gradually become individual attitudes through interaction. Inclusive synergy of creation and force Collaboration must not necessarily lead to cooperation and cohesion as long as the value of cooperation is not reflected and celebrated. Values set by the strong or dominant groups do not contribute to positive interaction with those who feel marginalized or not fully accepted. Those who are marginalized from change process do not feel involved, nor can they identify with the goals and visions determined by those who are dominant. Cooperative learning works at the level of those who have not achieved the stage of unlearning yet. Those who are willing to unlearn do not cause resistance. The uncertainties and anxieties of those members should be taken into full consideration. Their anxieties get full attention and the going beyond their anxieties must give them sense and meaning why they should take the risk. They learn to find meanings in exchanging with others as equal partners. Leaders of transformation have to be proactive and decrease situations of fragmentations between those who want change and those who do not want change. Both antagonist groups share same experiences of identifying new values and orientation why there is the necessity to grow together for excellent performance. There are many studies showing that strengthening the self-image of




10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


those reluctant to change enhances learning and increases self-efficacy in these specific participants (McInerney and van Etten, 2002). Striving for equality and equity should be the focus of both groups. Promoting network-thinking patterns increases the cognitive review of interdependency on the macro-level. The arrangement of cooperative learning, in which each group member gets a complimentary role and function, should sensitize the group to the need for cooperation and hence to the relevance of cultivating networks of relationships. Different levels of intelligence, abilities, and qualities are attached to different functions and roles so that the diversity of the groups is equally activated to join the process to find common goals. Differences are not associated with hierarchical or vertical values in the sense of degrading or of escalation of the top of the topmost. Differences are celebrated as complimentary differentiations for the accomplishment of the whole. Hence, all of them contribute their part to the group’s maturing. There is neither a higher nor a better position, but the involvement of everybody in the achievement of every task is important for the existence of the group, community, or society. Interconnectedness for collective “survival” The awareness of interdependency is the path to a systemic and holistic view. It acknowledges that behind differences there is union. Heterogeneity should be considered as an enriching source to broaden participants’ perceptions and to make them understand that each of them makes important contributions in the accomplishment of multiple tasks. Complementary actions make the participant realize that “Without you there is no me,” “We need each other to make a whole.” Contributing to achieve common objectives consolidates the group’s interactions, promotes shared activities and social cohesion. Diversity is unified in common commitment. This creates strong relationships and thus the learning community is established. Within the learning community members exchange information, help and resources. The group’s members support and empower each other. In essence, cooperative learning involves the idea of exchange based on the premise that the collective is stronger than individuals as lone fighters, and it focuses on inclusive integration: “Everybody is important to make the we for the survival.” The participants are committed not only to share experiences, views, and expertise, but also to support each other in situations of difficulties and challenges. Resources are provided to meet the risk. The system of exchange is characterized


204


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM


205

by the cognition of interconnectedness and of interdependency. This recognition would lead to the understanding of the need for:

2. Inclusion of all resources: Participants explore the resources of everybody and recognize that they are all necessary and to be appreciated. Participants identify common needs and strategies. They learn to combine the members’ resources to achieve goals. 3. Roles and functions are equally important: Participants experience that there is not a better or a minor role, but that the different roles specify different responsibilities which are complementary. They realize the need for different roles in order to complete the joint task. However, everybody should have access to creativity as finding solutions should go beyond current potential. 4. Group reward and celebration: When the task is done, it is not the individuals who are rewarded, but the group’s achievement which is celebrated. Celebrations of group efforts and success enhance the quality of cooperation. Sharing power for change Empowerment becomes an important dimension of group processes. Empowerment is a two-way process. Empowerment is a dialogue of critical self-reflection. It is not a competitive process in which to gain power at the cost of those who lose power. It is not that the powerful have to be conquered by the powerless. Empowerment requires conscientization that shared power or a reciprocal system of giving and receiving ensures a sustainable survival (see Section 3.4). Cooperative learning is empowering. In the learning community the members acquire the ability to empower themselves while empowering others:


1. Common goals: Participants experience the importance of cooperative learning only if they perceive and recognize that if they want to actualize their common vision, the participation of everybody is necessary.

They learn to believe in being able to control life and action to change their own situation. This experience helps them to overcome anxieties and uncertainties.

●

The collective experience motivates participants to change beyond the individual level and move toward other systems. Anxieties narrow down perception, whereas openness widens sensitivity and creativity.

●


10/5/2010 12:44:19 PM

206


● When openness is in the fore, individuals and groups learn more “playfully” through collective exchange and are more willing to think self-critically as well as more reflectively about the internal and external aspects of a problem. They identify macro-level structures, learn how to access information and take action.

● Positive experiences make them feel the relevance of being one “community” committed to common vision and goals. Cognitive recognition that they need each other for their own safety and sake, the positive experiences of small successes foster their social competence and sustain relationships, thus binding the learning community. Overcoming old patterns is not perceived as a must; being a learning organization is not a “fate” but an ethical necessity for economic survival.

As everybody is important for the group’s growth, participatory democracy is the central element in that integrative process. This again cultivates the individual’s commitment to social responsibility. Democracy might be confused in a multicultural context; however, one should know there is not one expression of democracy, and democracy is not the sole invention of Western societies. The function of democracy is to provide an environment in which everybody brings in their opinions to share with others. Acceptance is best promoted, when there is a foundation of respect and confidence, and individuals feel safe and have a strong self-esteem to be able to listen to and accept challenging opinions. However, the goal is collective, and everybody’s duty is to find solutions to achieve the collective survival. Exhibit 7.3 Lifelong Learning (LLL) for Values Creation Although lifelong learning is not new and is widely used in a variety of contexts, it still refers strongly to the educational field. Nobody would disagree that education is central to enriching the human capital which finally supports and strengthens national innovation and growth. Thus, economic development is driven and increased by knowledge. In short, lifelong learning is not a new learning system and is important in the global changing economy. Within this recognition, it is rather a blemish or even ignorance to emphasize that workers in the 21st century need to be lifelong learners in order to adapt to the labor demand and market, or simply said, education and training are tools to reduce poverty and in developing countries. Lifelong


● When learning becomes like creative “fun,” they develop strategies and skills together to influence internal and external structures.


10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM


207

●

●

●

●

●

Why do we tend to refer lifelong learning to individual learners and workers and not to a whole system? Why is learning not a taken-for-granted holistic and collective “event” of sharing more than dividing and competing? Education and formation are normative. Thus, what standards do we learn, when we repeat the same failures by trying to reducing them, and are not aware about the development direction we are forwarding? Or should we not stop over and question how do we want to learn to overcome failures by changing the direction of learning for a change? Should knowledge development rely on the use of knowledge and reproduce the same pattern of knowledge or rather on the transformation of knowledge?

Competencies are developed in formal and informal settings and situations. Education institutions provide one such setting and are hence a part of a whole life. Often other systems such as workplace, political, and cultural organizations, or social networks and so on, offer opportunities for active reflection and reflective action to face the challenges of the complex demands of the society of the 21st century. Accordingly, further questions are raised: ●

●

How much “real” cost do companies and societies save in the long run, by reducing knowledge promotion in the sense of lifelong learning? And do companies and societies really save cost, when they invest in the same knowledge production producing the same failures?

Further reading ●

●

●

● ●

Berman, L. M. (1981). “Leadership and lifelong learning,” in Theory into Practice. Vol. 20, No. 4. 285–289. Gardner, Howard E. (2001). Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet. New York, Perseus. Gardner, Howard. (2007). Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kolb, David (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood, Prentice Hall. Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being. Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent White Water. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.


learning should not be understood as a luxury for any country also for those considered as developed. We should be more astonished about that we have to emphasize lifelong learning as if it were not part of human life. The objectives of the World Bank or European Union support many programs on lifelong learning and encourage procedures that permit all people to find access to education. In this regard, some key questions emerge:


10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM


The learning process evolves in the learning community or in the organization in transformation. The stages of the learning process are a continuum in the development of a new culture, which becomes part and identity of the members involved. The corporate culture is in the soul of the organization and company. What is the role of the leader, the subordinates, or group in the process of the acquisition of transcultural competence? In Section 5.4, we have described and defined trans-cultural competence. Here, the question arises, how could trans-cultural competence be acquired and mentored by leaders? The leader is said to be a teishu and at the same time part of the process of continual improvement for others. Trans-cultural leaders have the learning ability to go beyond the cultural container paradigm through self-awakening and self-awareness (see Figure 7.3). By exploring self and others, they develop competences to mentoring and leading others for continual improvement. In balancing task and relationship orientation they ensure collective experiences of transformation. The self-mastery is based on collective exchange of high insight and forms the foundation of the we mastery. During the continual process leaders are not just mentors, but also learners at the

self

affective

behavioral

cognitive

task

WE

others

insight

relationship

Dimensions of learning capability

Dimensions of competence

Dimensions of Mastery

individual multicultural background

collective multicultural backgrounds

trans-cultural mastery

from self awakening

Self and We Mastery


7.4 Ensuring learning process for improvement

to leadership of transformation

Figure 7.3 Continual Improvement of Mastery


10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM

209

same time. Followers as learning participants do not perceive in their leaders the perfection or the accomplishment of leadership. Their leaders are a part of the learning process making themselves the leaders of tomorrow. The learning process (see table 7.1) evolves on three levels of perspective determined by the personal socio-cultural background, which could be quite multicultural: the focus on the self. Then in the context of diversity they learn to understand the partners’ situations and perspectives: the focus on the others. The synthesis of these two levels of perspectives results in the creation of the third level; on this level trans-cultural processes evolve. This level is the focus on the creation of we. The movement from the focus on the self to the focus on the we is comparable with the process of the perceiver in the acquisition of the conscious competence: While he/she reviews the experiences (reflection) – the focus on the I – by interacting with others – the focus on the others – to get an overview of insight – the focus on the we. The learning process is circular. On the we-level the principles are put into action (see Section 5.4). The learning process runs through different stages of teambuilding (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning), which is necessary for the development of team spirit, thus of the collective identity and finally of cohesion which enhances collaboration and cooperation across functions and levels. However, the team spirit is not limited to division and department orientation. The learning process is to develop cross-organizational learning. In the forming phase it is important that the leader and mentor arouses the need for the creation of meaning for their team’s existence or for their organization’s viability and survival. The collective feelings of need, even better the need of urgency (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Schein, 2004; Kotter, 1996) are the best drivers for the creation of transcultural competence, which includes the transformational aspect (see Section 3.5). The leader is the model of trans-cultural competence; he/ she gains credibility and trust from the members. The vision should not remain abstract; it is visualized and gets into the collective heart. During the forming stage the operating principles must be clearly communicated, and the commitment of everyone is ensured. In concrete cases, leaders can facilitate the forming stage by initiating warming-up events that encourage people to get to know each other and to set the foundation of respect and trust. Meetings that include time for introduction, small talks, sharing stories, etc. promote mutual understanding, build relationships and strengthen bonding (see Section 6.4.4.3). Often this stage is paid less attention or insufficient time is given for developing




10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM

210


Table 7.1 Learning Process of Trans-Cultural Competence

Forming T-Mentor: ● establish a sense of need for improvement ● makes principles clear and understandable (the group should understand the relevance and meaning of the principles for their own sake) ● provides a collaborative climate where cooperative learning and sharing experiences can evolve ● facilitates access to resources of sharing

Storming T-Mentor: ● give clear direct ion while being understanding ● give feelings of safety ● strengthen collaboration as prevention ● supports open discussions ● makes the invisible visible ● uses differences as resources for improvement and transformation ● share power with others to prevent negative power

Focus on the self

Focus on the others

●

●

●

develop awareness of their own culture/ basic assumptions develop consciousness of their tacit basic assumptions

●

establish a basis for relationships (bonding) establish an environment of reciprocal respect and confidence

Focus on the We ● ●

●

explore resources and request resources give and receive respect and trust

acknowledge their own limits of perception and resources

●

●

●

discover new perspectives show flexibility in accepting an opposite or unknown position clarify their own position

Focus on the We ●

●

●

strive for clarification and codification of differences and commonalities enhance sensitivity towards multiple perspectives and aspects of a situation celebrate each little win to overcome crises


The group’s members learn to ... Interactive level

Continued


10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM


211

The group’s members learn to ...

Norming T-Mentor: ● integrates difficult issues (that have been difficult to face within storming phase) ● initiates and supports inclusive thinking and acting ● provides and ensures necessary resources to support the process of goal’s achievement

Focus on the self

Focus on the others

●

●

ensure security

●

Focus on the We ●

● ●

●

find and define common needs, objectives, goals, and tools secure and implement resources distribute resources according to roles, tasks, and responsibilities set and “control” guidelines and structure for tasks identified by groups

Performing

●

T-Mentor: ● empowers and motivates to follow the common goal and tasks ● supports and promotes sharing and caring processes to achieve common goals

Focus on the We ●

● ●

Adjourning T-Mentor: ● provides time and space for introspection and evaluation with the intention of collective improvement ● ensures instructive feedback and group rewards ● allows collective celebration to strengthen the “new culture”

strengthen a climate of safety, a kind of “shelter” and “home” maintain relationship

●

develop and improve skills and knowledge by integrating new knowledge

●

establish a system of exchange (of skills, knowledge, experiences)

use group network and group resources to coordinate, complement, initiate, develop, implement, and improve various and common tasks help self via helping others develop strategies and find collective solutions reflect the part of self in the process of goal achievement

●

share results by discussing beneficial aspects of the learning process

Focus on the We ● ●

●

give and receive feedback on group growth celebrate the completion of group tasks and of the little wins develop new strategies for the start of new processes


Interactive level


10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM

first positive collective experiences.In the storming phase leaders need to find out the root causes and learn to take risk of confrontation. Denial, immobilization, resistance, and anxiety block out learning ability (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3). Leaders must make their groups become aware of the loss, if they remain “immobile” and cling to old patterns of habit. Applying Schein, leaders must arouse the anxiety of survival that transcends the anxiety of “unlearning“. In this phase sharing power by constantly creating sense and meaning, the process of empowering, of building teams and coalitions with other formal and informal leaders prevents the isolation of the leader (see Section 5.2). Kotter even suggested that organizations should have the courage to exchange top management reluctant to change: “Sometimes the only way to change a culture is to change key people” (1996:157). These examples of strategy would help the organizational leaders to adjust negative power and resistance. Generating short-term successes validates the sense of transcultural process and thus the transformation. Contributions to each small success in difficult times should get personalized and collective recognition, which Kouzes and Posner (2007) call “encouraging the heart.” In the norming phase people stabilize the principles; they get rooted in the principles. The trans-cultural process gets consolidated; transformation is in full progress. In this phase leaders should foster and strengthen collaboration. Participants learn to enable others; while doing so they get empowered, too. Performing phase is a creative phase, when people recognize the essence of the sharing of meaning by sharing actions and little “wins.” The results of interdependence and mutual need are recognized as enrichment for the implementation of vision. Enough time should be given to adjourning. During this phase the meaning of shared experiences gets validated, a common history of success is anchored; a new pattern or culture is woven (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Kotter, 1996). During all these phases the leader is in the role of a trans-cultural competence mentor. Trans-cultural competence is a dynamic generator, an open-ended act occurring in and through dialogue, exchange, interconnectedness, or interdependency, in and through reciprocal empowerment and transformation. Transformation is a two-way development criss-crossing structures and processes, where shared meaning and decisions are made possible. Everybody feels responsible for the goal’s achievement; there is the ownership of the survival‘s quality. Communication is the transmitter




10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM

213

of clear and visible messages. An exemplary environment must be initiated and created where participation of members is encouraged to achieve T-COM commitment, and where the participants learn to recognize the differences and challenges as sources and resources for their own mastery to achieve transformation as common goal.The role of the T-mentor is of utmost significance for the development of trans-cultural competence. Being trans-cultural leaders implies commitment to the role of mentoring based on cognitive and emotional belief that mentors should make a significant and positive impact on the life of others. This commitment forms the base for bonding and relationships, and induces trust and confidence. Trust and confidence are the anchors in times of crisis and at the same time provide “wings” to overcome barriers.

7.5 Cultural awareness as the process of “out-of-awareness” Schein emphasized in his work that leadership and culture cannot be separated: “Leadership is intertwined with culture formation, evolution, transformation, and destruction. Culture is created in the first instance by the actions of leaders; culture also is embedded and strengthened by leaders” (2004:414). For transformation, leaders have to be trained to develop the ability to leave behind their own taken-for-granted assumptions in order to develop through insight foresight, “see what is needed to ensure the health and survival of the group, and to make things happen that enable the group to evolve toward new cultural assumptions” (ibid.). In order to visualize the future and develop foresight, leaders concentrate on the presence with full senses to get profound knowledge by overcoming internalized patterns. This ability is referred to by Scharmer (2009), presencing. He described, “presencing is the ability to act in such a way that the actions we perform originate in the cominginto-presence of the future. When acting on this level, we let go of our “small selves” and turn into vehicles for the coming-into-being of a deep evolutionary stream. How do we do this? By carrying out a certain inner work, an inner work that is related to a threefold reversal process: turning one’s thinking away from judging to exploring; the reversal of feeling away from emotional reaction to appreciation and seeing with the heart; and a reshaping of the will away from hard ego intentionality to a softer, more future-receptive will that the philosopher Martin Buber refers to as “Grand Will.” The opening to future possibilities requires such reversals, that is, an inversion [Umstülpung] of the mentalemotional-intentional field structure. Is such a future open? Yes, every




10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM

future is fundamentally open – the future is potentiality. Closure comes into play with the past, and then when this past, which continues on, juts into the present.” In our words we say, leaders for organizational change and development bring in not just motivation, emotional strength, the ability to change the cultural assumptions, and the ability to create and include the involvement and participation of the followers, but they also primarily need perception and insight. This insight perception has to be aroused and developed by getting a deeper understanding of the internalized cultural frame in the present, but a result from the past. Envisioning the future and change can only happen when leaders know not only what to change, but why and what for. This requires the willingness to face with what one does not want to so as to develop and increase cultural and self-awareness. Change involves reflective action. In Section 5.4 we have outlined the base of reflective action as the process of “conscientization.” Leaders must be fallen out of the awareness of the taken-for-granted cultural pattern. Only through being awaken and shaken from their status quo do they gain high self-insight. When leaders have gone through the painful process of unlearning what they have been clinging to, they gain consciousness of their incompetence and weaknesses. Only, then they learn that they have to learn. This experience makes them sensitive to support others in the search of self-insight and assist them in the confrontation and recognition of anxiety that the unlearning of dysfunctional elements is necessary to move on and grow. The sensitivity resulted from self experiences provides the ability to recognize deficiencies of others and arouse the awareness of getting out of the taken-for-granted awareness in others. This is the competence of consciousness of the unconsciousness of others’ competence, which I consider as an attribution of trans-cultural leadership (see Sections 4.3 and 5.4). The following suggestion is developed as a modifiable program enhancing cultural awareness which was developed for an educational curriculum (Derungs, 2009; Köck, 2002). The design of training is general as it is a practice-based proposal and always needs adaptation to specific requirements and situations of time and space. For organizational change, the learning design must be modified according to the needs and goals of the organization in request of change. Still, cultural deep structure is all the same, however, the espoused patterns are different. The proposed design outlined in table 7.2 is suitable for training of expatriates working abroad or of a multicultural team. Here, I would like




10/5/2010 12:44:20 PM


215

Table 7.2 Proposed Design of Cultural Awareness Training in International Fields

1

2

3

4

Own culture • how culture is made • how organization is constructed through time and space • the lifecycle and evolution of a culture and of an organization • the membership pattern of the culture and of an organization • the meaning of corporate identity

Otherness and stranger • the concept of the stranger (“We and the Others”, otherness between fear and fascination, otherness abroad and at home) • exclusion and inclusion as means of stabilization • experiencing otherness as a motivation for unlearning • strategies of dealing with intercultural irritations: analyzing actual everyday situations Process of giving purpose in cultural dimensions • signs and their meanings attached to perception and interpretations • creation of a web of meanings in organizational process • process of giving vision and purpose • the power of defining mind sets Interpersonal communication • communication models • models with particular relevance for intercultural communication • cultural variation in verbal (words, speech acts, texts), in semi-verbal and in non-verbal communication (proxemics, gestures and mimicry, eye contact, body posture, etc.) • developing adequate verbal and non-verbal strategies for invitations, meetings, and negotiations

Goals • explore the meaning and relevance of culture and cultural assumptions for oneself • compare one’s own culture in confrontation with other cultural systems • discover the different significances of culture for one’s own identity at home and abroad • disclose the taken-for-granted personal adaptation • make links between the functions of ‘my own’ and that of ‘the other’ • explain the dynamics of in-group and out-group relationships • reflect on the effects of otherness in an intercultural encounter • discover dysfunctional elements through the eyes of others

• compare different interpretations attached to one sign draw conclusions • about misinterpretations in crosscultural encounters • know different systems of cultural norms and how they function • understand how vision is created and changed to go beyond differences • understand interpersonal communication • identify and analyze intercultural differences in verbal and non-verbal communication • develop effective solutions and focus in different situations


Unit 1 Topic field


10/5/2010 12:44:21 PM


1. Awareness that practice cannot be neutral, value-free, or objective. 2. Awareness of the development of sensitivity toward one’s own basic assumptions, which go back to cultural “heritage” (history, memory). 3. Awareness of how one’s own cultural background and experiences, attitudes, values, and biases that influence the ways in which we construct our world, our community, our organization, in which we want to live. 4. Awareness that one’s own decisions, ways of believing, doing, perceiving and solving problems, and being may be ethnocentric. 5. Awareness of one’s own negative emotional reactions toward other culturally different groups that may prove detrimental to others. 6. Awareness of stereotypes and preconceived notions that one may hold toward other culturally different groups. 7. Awareness that differences in value systems exist in the quality of relationship. 8. Awareness of the limits of one’s own competencies, knowledge, and expertise. 9. Awareness of the symmetric and asymmetric power relation during the cultural creation for envisioning, activating, supporting, implementing, ensuring, and recognizing cultural development and transformation. Envisioning, activating, supporting, implementation, ensuring, and recognizing is the mnemonic of EASIER, originating in the UK and developed by Hussey (1996) (cited in Hamlin et al., 2001:20). The raising of awareness is not a lonesome process. While interacting with others the consciousness of multiple perspectives are widening. The confrontation with other systems deepens the personal depth experience. This stage varies according to scholars and schools. Scharmer (2002) talked about ‘presencing’ and the spiritual dimension of social processes and used terms such as paying attention, seeing, sensing, presencing, crystallizing, and so forth. He considered his Theory U as a practical tool for individual and collective leadership and defined the U-process as movement of awareness on three levels: 1) co-sensing, 2) co-presencing, 3) co-creating (Scharmer, 2004). Some


to point out as in Section 7.1 that a training program or curriculum is not sufficient for the development of leadership strategy. Cultural awareness is strongly dependent on the development of attitudes. Therefore, attitudes for cultural competence embrace the following nine aspects:


10/5/2010 12:44:21 PM

217

aspects of his concept remind me of the holistic philosophy of Taoism, and the threefold movement of the meditation steps applied in some Japanese training programs for managers. Through reflecting the takenfor-granted assumptions and the past, the mind is cleared up and is open for the visualization of new, by then unthinkable, possibilities for the future. This breakout and transition are referred to by other scholars as “unlearning“ or “unfreezing“. In a similar bent, Inayatullah (2007) extended the theories of unlearning and developed a new concept of awareness for organizational transformation and educational practice by dividing his process of questioning the future into six stages. While questioning the future, learners explore perspectives and alternatives through methods such as analysis, scenarios, or futures landscape. How these stages could be attained concretely remains undisclosed, unless one has attended the training programs provided by the experts and founders. Based on Inayatullah’s (2007) concept of knowledge I associate the six stages with the following assumptions and compare them with a visualized example: ●

Stage 1: What you know

One is aware of what one knows. The reality is an accepted collected data. Things are as they are believed they should be. The foundation of the house of knowledge is laid. ●

Stage 2: What you know you know

Research, surveys and further information are used to assert hypotheses. The knowledge about the reality is extended due to extensive data collection. The mental map gets more details. The house of knowledge is filled with more decoration. ●

Stage 3: What you know you don’t know

Through questioning new knowledge is created. Critical discovery that one has not known yet is perceived as additional knowledge. However, one still moves in the same cultural paradigm. The awakening or falling out of awareness has not emerged yet. One starts to question whether the house could be changed slightly, as it seems not to be that firm as one had thought. ●



Stage 4: What you don’t know

Through interaction with others with different systems of knowledge one expands one’s own knowledge. Curiosity or irritation could be increased. One is now aware of one’s own cultural frame and limits. By comparing with other houses, one discovers what one could change in one’s own house.


10/5/2010 12:44:21 PM


Through deeper reflection one starts to recognize there are fields that are completely different and far away from what one can explain, but one might understand intuitively. Wisdom evolves from the acknowledgment that one does not know; the willingness is there to develop unconscious understanding. The house in which one has been living by then is perceived not as the house for good. However, in which way the foundation of the house should be changed is not clear yet. Stage 6: What you don’t know you don’t know

●

This stage requires the ability to move outside the comfortable paradigm to challenge what one has not perceived yet, for example, the future. One is aware that there is an urgency to move out of the house as it does not provide the security needed for the future. The willingness of building a new house with a new foundation is there. Leaving a home for a new home which has not established yet, requires above all courage, the awareness of the necessity of growth. Further reading ●

●

7.6

Bennis, Warren (2003.) On Becoming A Leader: The Leadership Classic – Updated And Expanded. New York, Perseus Books. Briggs, John & David F. Peat (2000) Seven Life Lessons of Chaos. Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change. New York, HarperCollins Publishers.

Creation of anchoring and safety

Inner safety and resilience towards uncertainties are the personal preconditions to develop the ability of leaving the comfort paradigm behind for future possibilities. Many of the literature and consultants for change suggest overcoming anxieties by identifying fears and having the courage to face fears first. However, how to face fears, when one feels already insecure while thinking of fears. And how to identify the underlying reasons of fears, when anxiety narrows down the perception field and one tends to fall back to what one is used to do. There are different techniques and methods for coping with fears and expanding the comfort zone from mental visualization methods, such as autosuggestion, positive thinking, neuro-imagination, to physical techniques and space creation, such as breathing and relaxation methods and space design. Raynolds et al. (2007) suggested several strategies


Stage 5: What you don’t know you know

●


10/5/2010 12:44:21 PM


219

for coping with fears in situations of uncertainties which I would like to extend as follows:

2. When we know about our weaknesses and what we are afraid of, we can prevent by avoiding them, or organizing our facing with fears triggers into manageable steps. By self-analyzing, we get a deeper insight of ourselves. Recognition of our weaknesses becomes strength; and the source of fears reveals them to be less dangerous as one had thought. 3. Positive experiences should be repeatedly called into mind. They become a mental anchor. Positive experiences should be collectively celebrated to reinforce collective confidence and motivation. 4. On the way to transformation success should be visualized as a meditation step. 5. Asking assistance and support should not be considered as a weakness, and providing assistance should be understood as a necessity of social responsibility for improvement. Related to each of these strategies there are all kinds of techniques and suggestions from psychological, medical, and anthropological approaches. It is not the purpose of this book to provide all these technical tools; as they all need practice and concrete situations to make them worthwhile. In reference to organizational learning ability and transformation, I would like to mention one most quoted and applied proposal on how to create psychological safety. The following sample is extracted from Schein’s proposal (2009): 1. “A compelling positive vision. If you are the target of change, you must believe that you and the organization will be better off if you learn the new way of thinking and working. The vision must be articulated (and widely held) by senior management. And, most important of all, the vision must articulate the desired “new way of working”. If the learners do not understand the actual behavior that will be required of them, they cannot figure out what they will have to unlearn and how they will go about it. The new way of working must be presented


1. With different methods, as mentioned above, the personal comfort zone could be expanded. I consider this step as the most important step before analyzing or confronting fears. Anchoring in self-safety is a pre-eminent precondition for resilience and the capability to go beyond one’s boundaries.


10/5/2010 12:44:21 PM


as necessary for the survival or growth of the organization and be perceived as non-negotiable.

3. Involvement of the learner. If the formal training is to take hold, you must have a sense that you can manage your own informal method of learning. Everyone learns slightly differently, so it is essential to involve learners in designing their own optimal learning process. The goals of learning are non-negotiable, but the method of learning can he highly individual. 4. Informal training of relevant “family” groups and teams. Because resistance to change is often embedded in group norms, informal training and practice must be provided to whole groups so that new norms and new assumptions can be built jointly. The learner should not feel deviant in deciding to engage in the new learning. 5. Practice fields, coaches, and feedback. You cannot learn something fundamentally new if you don’t have the time, the resources, coaching, and valid feedback on how you are doing. Practice fields are particularly important so that you can make mistakes and learn from them without disrupting the organization. 6. Positive role models. The new way of thinking and behaving may be so different that you must see what it looks like before you can imagine yourself doing it. You must be able to see the new behavior and attitudes in others with whom you can identify. 7. Support groups. Groups should be formed in which problems connected with learning are aired and discussed. You must be able to talk about your frustrations and difficulties in learning with others who are experiencing similar difficulties so that you can support each other and jointly learn new ways of dealing with the difficulties.


2. Formal training. If you are to learn new ways of thinking, new attitudes, and new skills, you must have access to whatever formal training is required. For example, if the new way of working necessitates teamwork, formal training on teambuilding and maintenance must be provided.

8. Systems and structures consistent with the desired changes. It is essential to have reward and discipline systems and organizational structures consistent with the new way of thinking and working. For example, if you are learning how to be a team player, the reward system must be group-oriented, the discipline system must punish individually aggressive and selfish behavior, and the organizational structures must make it possible to work as a team. Many change programs fail because


10/5/2010 12:44:22 PM


221

There are different techniques of how to anchor in self-confidence and to provide a comfort zone of safety. However, even when people are willing to go beyond their boundaries, leaders – in spite of their vision and courage in their heart – should identify the various risks and uncertainties of the project that they are going to face with their people. In many change management programs tools are developed to determine key risks and the related variables of interest and values. Tools and methods might increase abilities to identify strategies and estimate probabilities of certain uncertainties and risks exercising certain impacts on certain values and interests. However, they cannot replace intuitiveness, conscientiousness, or interpersonal sensitivity, or high awareness, or empathic communication skills to mitigate anxieties and clarify the mind for the foresight. Taking risk to go beyond potential is a kind of virtue, but taking risk and uncertainty without sensitivity and analysis of risks and the consequences is a kind of misuse of trust of those giving trust. The loss would outweigh the win. So, leaders have to balance between reasons and risks. However, a short-term pain is worthwhile for a long-term survival. Leadership for transformation is the mastery of providing people safety while they are holding out the short-term pain that could be very painful in that moment perceived as endless in order to safeguard a long-term future for them.

Further reading ●

●

7.7

Johnson, Barry (1996). Polarity Management. Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Amherst, HRD Press. Stacey, Ralph (1992). Managing the Unknowable. Strategic Boundaries between Order and Chaos in Organization. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.


the new way of working is not supported by the organizational structures, rewards, or controls.” (Schein, 2009:115-117)

From self-mastery to collective mastery

Interest in leadership for transformation has increased excessively in recent years. Boundaries of space and time seem to lose frames and forms; multi-optional opportunities do not always facilitate decisions, nor do they bring clarification into orientation. Transnational networks provide global and diverse connections; however, they cannot replace


10/5/2010 12:44:22 PM


the “shared home base” attachment and long-term commitment of responsibility and accountability. It is paradoxical or ironic that globalization finds itself in the pluralistic society more a witness of multidimensional fragmentations than homogenizing (see Section 2.1). On the other hand, the worldwide economic orientation moves away from communism, towards economic free-market systems and proclaims promises of freedom. It is in fact a “misleading” freedom; it leads to more consumption, and thus to more dependency of fulfilling the needs of consumption. Along the economic development supported by its knowledge system diversity in people and nature have been sacrificed to a promising progress of more polarization and alienation. Drinking water is no longer a free accessed goods; in many developing countries poor families have to sacrifice their modest income at the expense of education to buy drinking water. Deforestation and desertification, natural disaster and the consequences of climate change hit the most vulnerable hard and heavy. Talking about business survival while excluding issues and questions of the survival of nature and hence the human beings living from it is illusory, if not self-deluding and consequently destroying from within: Living meaningless while dying soulless. Knowing how Coke tastes but not where water comes from nor the values of water for sustaining life, is a real waste of living. In this time of disorientation and alienation where people are longing for sustainable sense and spirit, rhetoric gurus and touching talk masters are mounting ascension. Are they enabling or more selling vision? And those who believe that leaders are only born are waiting for them to being led and misled. No matter how big or small companies and communities are, whether in political, economic, social, or educational fields, we all need wake-up calls to be proactive, instead of watching out for someone selling us their future and remaining reactive for our conveniences. Leaders who need others because they want to become leaders tend to sell illusion as a promising vision. Not knowing their needs and acknowledging their weaknesses and blind spots, they would lead others with closed eyes, instead of “four eyes.” Seeing their own agonies is provokingly painful. What methods and tools will they adopt and exert to lead others, when they themselves fear the challenges of threats and deaths? Leadership starts with the self, first (see figure 7.4). Only when the self is free from fears from oneself, can self-insight and self-awareness unfold. Achieving the level of understanding of our abilities and


222


10/5/2010 12:44:22 PM


223

expanding comfort zone

Mentoring trans-cultural leadership

Collective mastery of leadership of T-COM

anchoring

safety

reasons to be more

conscientization

transformation

selfawareness consistency creativity sensitivity meaningful awakening reflective action self-insight connectivity emotional resilience intuitiveness sense giving active reflection vision self recognition/respect Practices Perspectives Person Power Purpose o relationship/social emotion o task/goal creation power and o future/sustainable o pragmatic balance survival o diversity as source of o sensitive connectivity creativity for turning points pragmatic sensitive cultural practinionist vanquisher activist of the visualizer of anticipatory analyst awareness of fears reasons to be more values strategist raiser

forming relationship builder

storming

norming

performing

adjourning

compassionate clear communicator

Figure 7.4 Trans-Cultural Leadership from Self-Mastery toward Collective Mastery

inabilities furthers deeper insight into our potential and the reason why we are here. Anchoring in a positive self-concept is important in terms of expanding the comfort zone from self to others, and finally to the environment. Self-esteem and recognition is very important in terms of keeping consistency and providing self-safety in any situation in which a person is exposed. This quality excels emotional resilience providing confidence shifting from the individual’s core into the pool of others, groups and moreover of the community at large. When the self feels safe, the mind is open for inspiration and creativity to explore the reasons to be, and to discover the reasons to be more. The ties between where we come from and where we wish to go at the end of the day, become through the search of meanings of life and purposeful vision apparent and significant. The conscientization while getting awoken from the profound knowledge of our old system pioneers the door to transformation, while keeping conscientiousness all the way along. The anchoring in positive self widens sensitivity and connectivity towards others and the environment. Conflicts and challenges where oneself falls short of the expectations of others, or that one is confronted with effects one’s view, but is by no means the


Self-mastery


10/5/2010 12:44:22 PM

weakening the self. Experiences of pains, failures and disappointments are perceived as energizing turning points to increase active reflection for the enhancement of reflective action. When person and power are synergizing due to the awareness of multiple perspectives for a meaningful purpose, practices are activating the reasons to be more. The state of future is concretized in manageable steps and prevents the self from living in vision of talking the walk. Practices implicate outside influence reflecting the values given to the goals. Leaders are not accomplished personalities. While mentoring others for trans-cultural leadership they increase their leadership competence. Mentoring others is necessary to recognize their ability to be sufficient and to go beyond their potential. Not knowing the answers in advance and accepting crises to come, they can still model the way for others while establishing sense for improvement and creating values with others. The meaning-making and values creation processes support not only cognition and creativity, but also social emotions that sustain relationship and cohesion. Collective involvement and commitment is imperative for the goal’s attainment, because sustainable survival requires perseverance and persistency based on collective cooperative learning and sharing. Leading a collective to the mastery of leadership of trans-cultural competence is going through different phases with them: from forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. While mentoring others for their self-mastery requires a variety of competencies and the ability to be aware of different roles. In the forming stage, leaders are sensitive cultural analysts; they know the organization’s and community’s members they are leading. In different stages they are awareness raisers, guiding others to deeper insight while using diversity as the source of discovery for turning points. Being relationship builders they extend the individual comfort zone to a collective one by communicating to the heart for the reasons to be more and to make the vision come true. Attached to meaningful values they are very pragmatic in the search for sustainable measures for future and viability. Though knowing the direction, but not knowing all the answers and ready to fail, they are sensitive to new perspectives and solutions in order to develop anticipatory strategies. For example, to prevent frustration and despair, they are practitioners of establishing perpetual celebration of each small success and win to effectively maintain a healthy concept of transformation that does not nurture resistance and anxieties. Subsequently, as a result of mentoring others for self-mastery for trans-cultural transformation, leaders being mentors at the same time




10/5/2010 12:44:23 PM


225


are achieving the level of mastery from self to collective, and furthermore to the environment at large. Supporting others in transformation results in the self-mastery of the respect of self and others’ needs and hopes. The anchor gains its depth and weight for any tempest. When the comfort zone is conducive to a meaningful existence, the transformation has become a natural process; it has been flowing along with consistency. The caterpillar can fly.


10/5/2010 12:44:23 PM

Trans-cultural leadership for transformation Leaders in the 21st century are challenged to perform in an increasingly complex, interdependent, faster moving, and competitively dynamic globalized world. They are under pressure to adjust their strategies and management styles, and too often they succumb to the temptation of the simple and quick repair as the “efficient” solution. Transformation is a natural process; organizations and companies have no other choice but to change. Organizations have therefore to review their attitude and belief system toward change. If change is perceived as a threat, they will cling to their old structure, and their organizations become a firm fortress. Organization is understood as a social construction emerging through interactive processes of meaning making. Basic assumptions, which control behavior in deep and persisting ways, are therefore invisible and outside awareness. They influence the perception of needs and motives of individuals and steer the individuals’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations, which are transmitted by communication. Subsequently behaviors determine how organizations are formally and informally structured and organizing processes, how organizations define themselves in reference to others and the environment, and how they interact and handle challenges, crisis and conflicts. It follows that each organization has a culture. I say each organization represents a culture. Therefore, when we talk about organization, we always mean organizational culture, in which people engage one another in purposeful and ordered activity. Organizational culture is a complex series of interrelated activities with roots embedded in past experiences. Through interactions basic assumptions are created and get confirmed; they become organizational reality. So if basic assumptions are negative,


Epilogue

226

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_10_epi.indd 226

10/5/2010 10:13:57 AM

the organization will shape the reality in such a way that it validates the assumptions. We call it self-fulfilling prophecy. Consequently, organizations are affected by the assumptions they have constructed and affect their environment with their assumptions. In other words, organization and any system must reflect and revise critically the cultural paradigm, which has been taken for granted and remains often not debatable, thus sacrosanct. If basic assumptions focus on exploitation, profit-making, and on self-interest, the concerning organizations and their cultures will define and implement their strategies in such a way that their assumptions finally determine their own existence. In a world of multiple options diversity of multicultural choice is a privilege of a few societies. In spite of many possible orientations, disorientation would be the wrong solution, when one has to choose a sustainable survival strategy. There are, in fact, not many directions. So, the question we raise here is: What kind of culture or basic assumptions do organizations need to live on or even to revive in the long-term? In that sense, transformation is a radical change throughout SLEPT rethinking analysis for a triple performance. There is the urgency of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental improvement. A sustainable survival excels on the scorecard of current return on investment by creating value creation and embracing social return on investment and thus ensures not only the success for shareholders but also for extended stakeholders respectively for the environment at large. Organizational change starts with queries about the reason to be and why there is the reason to be more. It searches for purposes and results, and develops how to enhance processes to change principles in such a way as to walk the path of becoming better, in the sense of being more meaningful in depth and completion. Any change needs an organization, thus an organizing top capable to discover the turning point as the chance to use lessons learnt for change. An organization without leadership is like a ship without a captain. Many scientists make a distinction between management and leadership. In a consumer and global market-driven environment management of change has become a profit-promising product line of many consulting companies. Best practices and practical guides provide recipes for how to manage change. However, change is dynamic and complex, which finally determines how we will survive on this planet. Thus, change is in need of more than just managerial skills. If change is to maintain and to keep alive the status quo of increasing profitmaking, consequently we cannot call it change; we are still moving in the same direction. Change management gets an alibi function.


Epilogue 227


10/5/2010 10:13:57 AM

Furthermore, implementation of change without inspiration is administration. Management requires leadership that proves the ability to envision a future. However, vision without making it come true is illusion. It follows that it does not only depend on how we want to survive, but on the “heartful” (consistent with life) decision of direction, and on how long we want to survive. Surely, in today’s unpredictable circumstances organizations must change. And if organizations have to invest a lot of energy and resources in change management, they are well advised to invest in transformation that promises long-term viability and survival. For this, they do not need management of how to maintain the status quo, but leadership bringing new thinking and different actions not simply to respond appropriately to the challenges of globalization, but to anticipate the problems resulting from globalization. “All highly successful transformation efforts combine good leadership with good management” (Kotter, 1996:129). Trans-cultural leadership is suggested as the new leadership concept, which uses different aspects of transformational leadership and the concept of trans-culture. Transformational leadership provides a vision for the future in turbulent times, when people are desperate for a hopeful destination. Transformational leaders are able to attract people for a common vision and to create a mission statement from a vision. They can get people signed on to the mission. They can plan management processes and frame the problem in order to generate and to mobilize commitment for change. The concept of trans-culture goes beyond the flexible adaptation to different cultural standards and systems. Trans-cultural leadership is transformational and acts in the “out-of-awareness” of the hitherto existing and validated culture. Trans-cultural leaders are able to deconstruct their own cultural pattern; and in interactive processes (communication) with others they reconstruct (reorganize) a new cultural structure. They take the pain of unlearning dysfunctional old patterns and the risk of the confrontation with cultural uncertainty to make the cultural paradigm shift in their organization reality. Trans-cultural leaders are not just the soft leaders of sense-making. They know how to face resistance by engaging the people in disengaging from the past for a “rebirth” with the perspective of new beginnings. Being soft in the sense of endurance, patience, of strong self-confidence they creatively break open taken-forgranted assumptions. They mobilize others to trans-cultural commitment in the reweaving of a new web of meaning which goes into the “heart”; because the new vision pays contribution for substantial ethical and aesthetical survival. Leadership can be understood as an aesthetical function, in the sense that “where meaning is created, leadership occurs (...)




10/5/2010 10:13:57 AM

and systems are developed” (Scholtes, 1998:375). What meaning do we wish nowadays in our landscape for our viability and survival? Organizations are the building systems of a whole society on micro and macro-levels. Whether it is a company, a non-profit organization, school, or government, each organizational culture with its formal and informal leaders contributes to our collective economic, civic, community, and social lives. Finally, it depends much on the leader within us how well we individually and collectively define the way we want to live and survive in an environment. In this regard, my hope is that this study will shed some light on the leaders’ behaviors and organizational outcomes, whether their core values can assure sustainable life. And as a consequence for practitioners in leadership positions, the findings may provide useful thought-provoking impetus: Conventional managers and soft leaders might want to adjust their leadership behaviors according to the needs of their environment. For sustainable survival they must challenge the challenges by going through painful transition to get “rebirth.” Only then can we confirm that transformation has evolved. Trans-cultural leadership development programs are there to raise awareness of the urgency to grow in the out-of-awareness of dysfunctional pattern. The transformation must therefore begin in the mindset where (obstructive) culture must be restructured/reprogrammed. Leadership can be acquired as well as competence through training, coaching, and change management programs. But it needs an environment which is open and willing to accept the turning point as the opportunity for a fundamental change towards a worthwhile revival. Otherwise: “Throwing money at the problem is never a good idea, nor is talking down to people” (Kotter, 1996:109).


Epilogue 229


10/5/2010 10:13:57 AM

Anderson, Dean and Linda Ackerman Anderson (2001). Beyond Change Management: Advanced Strategies for Today’s Transformational Leaders. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Anderson, D. and M. Anderson (2005). ‘The ROI of leadership and coaching: Three key insights for value creation.’ MetrixGlobal. [Online]. Available at www.coachfederation.org/research-education/icf-research-portal/researchportal–reports/ Anderson, L. (1997). ‘Argyris and Schön’s theory on congruence and learning’. [Online]. Available at www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/argyris.html Argyris, Chris and Donald Schön (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Addison Wesley. Argyris, Chris (1993). Knowledge for Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Assmann, Jan (1997). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München, Beck. Avolio, Bruce J. (2005). Leadership Development in Balance. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Avolio, Bruce J. and Francis J. Yammarino (eds) (2002). Transformational and Charismatic Leadership. The Road Ahead. Oxford, Elsevier. Baecker, Dirk (2001). ‚Globalisierung und kulturelle Kompetenz’, in Dirk Baecker. Wozu Kultur. Berlin, Kadmos. Barrett, R. (2006). Building a Values-Driven Organization: A Whole System Approach to Cultural Transformation. Burlington, Butterworth-Heinemann. Barrett Values Centre provided by http://www.valuescentre.com, date accessed 30 May 2010 Barrez, Dirk (2002). Une Autre Mondialisation est Possible. De Seattle à Porto Allegre. Rhode-St-Genèse, Roseau Vert. Bass, Bernard M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. New York, Free Press. Bass, Bernard (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York, Free Press. Bass, Bernard. and Ronald E. Riggio (2006). Transformational Leadership. New York, Routledge. Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of Semiology. London, Jonathan Cape. Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) (2001). The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations. New York, Oxford. Beck, Ulrich (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine moderne Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp. Bennis, Warren (2003). On Becoming A Leader: The Leadership Classic – Updated And Expanded. New York, Perseus Books. Bennis, W. (1984). ‘The Four Competencies of Leadership’, in Training and Development. 38(8), 14–19.


Bibliography

230

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_11_bib.indd 230

10/5/2010 10:12:32 AM

231

Bennis, Warren, J. Parikh, and R. Lessem (1994). Beyond Leadership. Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology. Oxford, Blackwell Ltd. Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika and Claudia von Werlhof (2001). There is an Alternative. Subsistence and Worldwide Resistance to Corporate Globalization. London, Zed Books. Bergemann, Britta and Niels Bergemann (2005). Interkulturelle Management kompetenz. Anforderungen und Ausbildungen. Heidelberg, Physica. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (2003). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt/M., Fischer. Berman, L. M. (1981). ‘Leadership and lifelong learning’, in Theory into Practice. 20(4), 285–289 Bodley, John H. (1994). Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and Global System. California, Mayfield Publishing Company. Bolaffi, Guido; Bracalenti Raffaelo et al. (ed.) (2003). Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity & Culture. London, Sage. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P.(2003). A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks. Exeter, Centre for Leadership Studies. [On line]. Available at www.leadership-studies.com Bourdieu, Pierre (1987). Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp. Briggs, John and David F. Peat (2000). Seven Life Lessons of Chaos. Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change. New York, Harpercollins Publishers. Bryman, Alan E. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London, Sage. Burns, James M. (1978). Leadership. New York, HarperCollins Publishers. Cameron, Kim S. and Robert E. Quinn (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Carr-Ruffino, Norma (1999). Diversity Success Strategies. Woburn, ButterworthHeinemann. Carroll, Archie B. (1991). ‘The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders’, in Business Horizons. July/August 1991. Foundation for the School of Business at Indiana. Carroll, Stephen J. and Martin J. Gannon (1996). Ethical Dimensions of International Management. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller (2009). The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World. London, The Guilford Press. Castles, Stephen and Alastair Davidson (2000). Citizenship and Migration. Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. London, Macmillan. Chabod, Federico (1967). L’idea di nazione. Laterza, Roma e Bari. Center for Creative Leadership – CCL, (2009). ‘Developing a leadership strategy. A critical ingredient for organizational success,’ in White Pater Series, May 2009, 1-29. [Online]. Available at www.ccl.org/leadership/research/sharing/ index.aspx#whitePapers Clark, P. (2000). Organisations in Action: Competition between Contexts. London, Routledge. Collins, Jim (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don’t. New York, HarperCollins Publishers. Conger, Jay A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass


Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:32 AM

Bibliography

Conger, Jay A. and Rabindra N. Kanun (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Connerley, Mary L. and Paul B. Pedersen (2005). Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment. Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. London, Sage. Cox, Taylor Jr (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. Theory, Research & Practice. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler. Cox, Taylor Jr and R. L. Beale (1997). Developing Competency to Manage Diversity. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler. Cox, David and Manohar Pawar (2006). International Social Work. Issues, Strategies, and Programs. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Crane, D. (ed.) (1994). The Sociology of Culture. Oxford, Blackwell. Cray, D. and G. Mallory (1998). Making Sense of Managing Culture. London, International Thompson Business Press. Davidson, Marilyn J. and Sandra L. Fielden (2003). Individual Diversity and Psychology in Organizations. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Deal, Terence E. and Allan A. Kennedy (1982). Corporate Cultures. New York, Addison Wesley. Deming, Edwards W. The Deming Library. Cultural Transformation. A Discussion Guide. Washington, CC –M Productions Inc. ManagementWisdom.com. [Online]. Available at http://forecast.umkc.edu/ftppub/ba541/DEMINGLIBRARY/ DLVol24-25.PDF Deming, Edwards W. (2000). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MIT Press. Deming, Edwards W. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MIT Press. Deming’s change management concepts and tools: www.deming.org Deresky, Helen (2003). International Management. Managing Across Borders and Cultures. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Derungs-Ruhier, Isabelle M. (2009). ‘What is Trans-Cultural Competence?’ in Derungs-Ruhier, I. M., P. Gabriel-Schärer, and B. Wandeler (eds) Werkstattheft: Interkulturelles Lernen – Transkulturele Kompetenz. Luzern, Hochschule Luzern – Soziale Arbeit. Derrida, Jacques (2004). Die différance. Ausgewählte Texte. Stuttgart, Reclam. Devine, Elizabeth and Nancy L. Braganti (1998). The Travelers’ Guide to Asian Customs and Manners. New York, St Martin’s Press. Diekmann, Andrea (1999). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek b. Hamburg, Rowohlts. Dickson, M., Hanges, P., House, R. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.(1999). GLOBE Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project: Progress Report. Knowledge@Wharton. [Online]. Available at http:// knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperid=660 Different concepts and tools: www.mindtools.com Dornheim, Jutta (2001).Kultur als Begriff und als Ideologie – historisch und aktuell’, in Dagmar Domenig (Hrsg) Professionelle Transkulturelle Pflege. Bern, Göttingen, Toronto, Seattle, Huber. Driskill, Gerald W. and Angela L. Brenton (2005). Organizational Culture in Action. A Cultural Analysis Workbook. London, Sage. Drucker, Peter (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York, HarperCollins Publishers.


232


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

233

Duffy, F. M. (2008). ‘Using power and political skills in ethical ways to lead whole-system transformation’, in The F.M. Duffy Reports. 13(3), 2–29. [Online]. Available at www.thefmduffygroup.com/publications/reports Durkheim, Emile (1933). The Division of Labor in Society. New York, Free Press. Earle, Timothy (2008). ‘Economic anthropology’, in Durlauf, Steven and Blume, Lawrence (eds). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Fiol, M., Harris, D. and House, R. (1999). Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for Effecting Social Change. University of Colorado at Denver [On line] Available at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/charisma.htm Fisher, John (1999). Personal Transition Curve – The Stages of Personal Transition – and Introduction to Personal Construct Psychology. Berlin. [Online]. Available at www.businessballs.com/personalchangeprocess.htm Fiske, Alan P. (2002). ‘Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures – a critique of the validity of measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)’, in Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78 –88. American Psychological Association, Inc. Flick, U., Ernst v. Kardorff, and Ines Steinke (2000). Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek b. Hamburg, Rowohlts. Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972 – 1977. London, Harvester. Foucault, Michel (2005). Analytik der Macht. Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp. Freeman F.H., Schwartz, M.K. and Axtman, K.M. (1998). Leadership Education Source Book of Courses and Programs. Greensboro, CCL Press. Freire, Paolo (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, Penguin. French, John R.P. and Raven, Bertram (1959). ‘The bases of social power’, in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, Institute for Social Research. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Funakawa, Atsushi (1997). Transcultural Management: A New Approach of Global Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1979). Truth and Method. London, Sheed and Ward. Gambetta, Diego (1988). “Can We Trust Trust?” in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations. Oxford, Basil Balckwell, 213–237. Gardner, Howard (1983/2003). Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York, Basic Books. Gardner, Howard E. (2001). Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet. New York, Perseus. Gardner, Howard (2007). Five Minds for the Future. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Gardner, John (1989). On Leadership. New York, Free Press. Gardner, Pierre J. L. and R. B. Dunham (2002). Management and Organizational Behavior : An Integrated Perspective. Cincinnati, South-Western College. Garfinkel, Howard (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall. Geertz, Clifford A. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic Books Inc. Giddens, Anthony (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, Polity Press.


Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

Bibliography

GLOBE: www.thunderbird.edu Goleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, Bantam. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership. Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing. Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York, International Publishers. Greene, Roberta R. (1999). ‘Carl Rogers and the Person-Centered Approach’, in Greene, R. R. (ed.) Human Behavior Theory and Social Work Practice. New York, Aldine de Gruyter. Grint, Keith (ed.) (1997). Leadership. Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gupta, A. and J. Ferguson (1992). ‘Beyond culture: Space, identity, and the politics of difference’, In Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), pp. 6–23. Hall, Brian (1995). Values Shift. A Guide to Personal and Organizational Transformation. Rockport, Twin Lights Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York, Doubleday. Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York, Anchor Books. Hall, Edward T. (1990). The Silent Language. New York, Anchor Books. Hall, Stuart (2000). Cultural Studies. Ein politisches Theorieprojekt. Ausgewählte Schriften 3. Hamburg, Argument. Haferkamp, Hans and Neil J. Smelser (eds) (1992). Social Change and Modernity. Berkeley, University of California Press. [Online] Available at: http://ark.cdlib. org/ark:/13030/ft6000078s Hamlin, B., Keep, J. and Ash, K. (2001). Organizational Change and Development. A Reflective Guide for Managers, Trainers and Developers. London, Prentice Hall. Hansen, Klaus P. (2000). Kultur und Kulturwissenschaft. Eine Einführung. Tübingen/ Basel, Francke. Hayek, Nicolas G. (2005). Nicolas G. Hayek im Gespräch mit Friedemann Bartu – Ansichten eines Vollblut-Unternehmers. Zürich, NZZ. In English: Hayek, Nicolas G. (2006). Beyond the Saga Swatch: Talks with an Authentic Contractor with Friedemann Bartu. Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (ed.) (2004). Was treibt die Gesellschaft auseinander? Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp. Helfferich, Cornelia (2005). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Herman, Stanley H. (2001). The Tao at Work. On Leading and Following. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Hersey, Paul (1984). The Situational Leader. New York, Warner. Hersey, Paul, Kenneth, B., Johnson, D. (1996). Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources. London, Prentice-Hall. Hettlage, R., P. Deger Deger, and S. Wagner (eds) (1997). Kollektive Identität in Krisen. Ethnizität in Religion, Nation, Europa. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag. Higgs, Malcom (2000). ‘Do leaders need emotional intelligence? A study of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership of change’, in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 5(6), 195–212. Higgs, Malcom and Mary McGuire (2001). ‘Emotional intelligence and culture. An exploration of the relationship between individual emotional intelligence and organizational culture’, in Emotional Intelligence and Culture. Working Papers Series.


234


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

235

Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Beverly Hills, Sage. Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D. Ohayv, and G. Sanders (1990). ‘Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, in Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316. Hofstede, Geert (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. and R. H. Franke (1991) ‘Cultural roots of economic performance: a research note’, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 165–173. Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Holliday, Charles O. Jr et al. (2002). Walking the Talk. The Business Case for Sustainable Development. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing. Honneth, Axel (1994). Desintegration. Bruchstücke einer soziologischen Zeitdiagnose. Frankfurt/M., Fischer. Honneth, Axel (1992). Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte. Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp. Hoogvelt, Ankie (2001). Globalization and the Postcolonial World. The New Political Economy of Development. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Horth, David and Dan Buchner (2009). Innovation Leadership. How to use innovation to lead effectively, work collaboratively and drive result. Center for Creative Leadership In: White Pater Series, May 2009. pp. 1–22. [Online]. Available at www.ccl.org/leadership/research/sharing/index.aspx#whitePapers House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Imbusch, Peter (Hrsg.) (1998). Macht und Herrschaft. Sozialwissenschaftliche Konzeptionen und Theorien. Opladen, Leske & Budrich. Inayatullah, Sohail (2007). Questioning the Future: Methods and Tools for Organizational and Societal Transformation. Taipei, Tamkang University. Inayatullah, Sohail (year unknown). Spirituality as the Forth Bottom Line. [Online] Available at www.metafuture.org Johnson, Barry (1996). Polarity Management. Identitfying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Amherst, HRD Press. Kaschuba, Wolfgang (ed.) (1995). Kulturen – Identitäten – Diskurse. Perspektiven Europäischer Ethnologie. Berlin, Adademie. Kerth, Klaus, Heiko Asum, Nührich Asum, and Peter Klaus (2007). Die besten Strategietools in der Praxis. Welche Werkzeuge brauche ich warum? Wie wende ich sie an? Wo liegen die Grenzen? München, Hanser. Keyton, Joann (2005). Communication and Organizational Culture. A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. London, Sage. Klein, E. and J. Izzo (1998). Awakening Corporate Soul. Four Paths to Unleash the Power of People at Work. Lions Bay, Fairwinds Press. Kluckhohn, F. R. and F. L. Strodtbeck (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Row, Peterson. Köck, Christoph (ed.) (2002). Project: Course System Intercultural Competence. Bayerischer, Volkshochschulverband Kolb, David (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood, Prentice Hall.


Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

Bibliography

Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, Harvard Business School. Koonce, Richard (2001). ‘Redefining diversity. It is not just the right thing to do. It also makes good business sense’, in Training and Development. 55(12), 22–32. Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, Harvard Business School. Kouzes, James M. and Barry Z. Posner (1998). Encouraging the Heart. San Franciso, Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, James M. and Barry Z. Posner (2007). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Kram, Kathy E. (1985). Mentoring at Work. Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, Scott. Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn (1952). ‘Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions’, in Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 47. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Chicago. Laszlo, E., Grof, S. and Russell, P. (1999). The Consciousness Revolution. Boston, Element Books. Lawlor, E., Kersley, H. and Steed, S. (2009). A Bit Rich: Calculating the Real Value to Society of Different Professions. In NEF – the new economic foundation. December, 2009. [Online]. Available at www.neweconomics.org/publications/ a-guide-to-social-return-on-investment Leadership tools: www.mindtools.com www.obama-leadership.com www.geert-hofstede.com www.deming.org http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm (date accessed 9 April 2010). www.swatchgroup.com Leslie, Jean B. (2009). ‘The Leadership GAP. What you need, and don’t have, when it comes to leadership talent. Center for Creative Leadership’, in White Pater Series, June 2009. 1–15. [Online]. Available at www.ccl.org/leadership/ research/sharing/index.aspx#whitePapers Lewin, Kurt (1947). ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’, in Human Relations. 1, 5–41. Lewis, Jeff (2002). Cultural Studies. The Basics. London, Sage. Lukács, Georg (1971). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MIT Press. a question of ethics’, in Cushner, K. and R. Bislin (eds). Improving Intercultural Interactions. Vol. 2, pp. 149–165. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Luhmann, Niklas (1988). “Familiarity Can We Trust Trust?” in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 91–107. Luhmann, Niklas (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp. Mander, Jerry and John Cavanough (2003). Eine andere Welt ist möglich. Alternativen zur Globalisierung. München, Riemann. Maslow, Abraham H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper and Row. McAlister, D.T., Ferrell, O.C and Ferrell, L. (2005). Business and Society. A Strategic Approach to Social Responsibility. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.


236


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

237

McAuley, J., Duberley, J. and Johnson, P. (2007). Organization Theory. Challenges and Perspectives. Harlow, Pearson Education. McEwan, Tom (2001). Managing Values and Beliefs in Organisations. London, Prentice Hall. McFarlin, Dean B. and Paul D. Sweeney (2005). International Management. Strategic Opportunities and Cultural Challenges. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company. McGuire, J.B., Palus, C.J., Pasmore, W. and Rhodes, G.B. (2009). ‘Transforming Your Organization. Global Organizational Development White Paper Series. Center for Creative Leadership’, in White Pater Series, 2009, 1–17. [Online]. Available at www.ccl.org/leadership/research/sharing/index.aspx#whitePapers McInerney, Dennis M. and Shawn van Etten (eds) (2002). Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning. Greenwich, Information Age. McSweeney, Brendan (2002). ‘Hofstede’s of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis’, in Human Relations. 55(1), 89 –118. Misztal, Barbara A. (1996). Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge, The Polity Press Moallem, Minoo (2000). ‘“Foreignness” and be/longing: transnationalism and immigrant entrepreneurial spaces’, in Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. XX(1&2), 200–216. Morrison, T., Wayne, A.C. and Borden, G.A. (1994). Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands. How to do Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Adams Media. Morgan, Gareth (1998). Images of Organization. London, Sage. Nadler, D., Shaw, R.B. and Walton, A.E. (1995). Discontinuous Change. Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Nadler, David A. and Michael L. Tushman (1994). ‘Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership and organizational change’, in: Schneier, Craig E. et al. (eds). The Training and Development Source Book. Amherst, HRD Press, pp. 278–291. Northouse, Peter G. (2001). Leadership – Theory and Practice. London, Sage. Nye, Joseph S. Jr (2008). The Powers to Lead. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. Opp, Karl-Dieter (1999). Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag. Organizational culture and management: www.12manage.com Parker, M. (2000). Organizational Culture and Identity. London, Sage. Parsons, Talcott (2000). Das System moderner Gesellschaften. Weinheim, Juventa. Pasmore, W.; Lafferty, K. (2009) Developing a Leadership Strategy. A Critical Ingredient for Organizational Success. Centre for Creative Leadership. In: Whithe Paper Series, May 2009. [On line] Available at http://www.ccl.org/ leadership/research/sharing/index.aspx#whitePapers Pedersen, Paul B. (2000). A Handbook for Developing Multicultural Awareness. Alexandria, American Counseling Association. Pedersen, Paul (1997). ‘Doing the right thing: a question of ethics’, in Cushner, K. and R. Bislin (eds). Improving Intercultural Interactions. Vol. 2, pp. 149– 165. Thousand Oaks, Sage. PESTEL Analysis tool: http://university-essays.tripod.com/pest_pestel_pestle_ lepest_analysis.html


Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

Bibliography

Plattner, Stuart (ed.) (1989). Economic Anthropology. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Porter, Michael E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, Free Press. Prahalad, C. K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004). ‘Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation‘, in Journal of Interactive Marketing. 18(3), 5–14. Prigogine, Ilya (1997). The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York, Free Press. Randall, Julian (2004). Managing Change/Changing Managers. New York, Routledge. Ray, Michael and Alan Rinzler (1993). The New Paradigm in Business. Emerging Strategies for Leadership and Organizational Change. New York, Tarcher&Pergee. Raynolds, J., Lodato, A., Gordon, R., Blair-Smith, C., Welsh, J. and Gerzon, M. (2007). Leadership the Outward Bound Way. Seattle, Mountaineers Books. Research and resources on diversity: www.edchange.org Rich, Bruce (1998). Die Verpfändung der Erde. Die Weltbank, die ökologische Verarmung und die Entwicklungskrise. Stuttgart, Schmetterling. Robbins, Stephen P. (2003). Organisational Behaviour. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Rogers, Carl R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, Carl R. (1970). On Encounter Groups. New York: Harper & Row. Roosevelt, Thomas R. Jr (1991). Beyond Race and Gender. Unleashing the Power of Your Total Work Force by Managing Diversity. New York, Amacom. Rugman, Alan M. and Simon Collinson (2006). International Business. Harlow, Pearson. Russell, Peter (1995). The Global Brain Awakens. Our Next Evolutionary Leap. Palo Alto, Global Brain Inc. Russell-Bennett, R., Previte, J. and Zainuddin, N. (2009). ‘Conceptualising value creation for social change management‘, in Australasian Marketing Journal. 17(4), 211–218. Said, Edward W. (2001). ‘Kultur, Identität und Geschichte’, in Schröder, Gerhart; Breuninger, Helga (Hrsg.) Kulturtheorien der Gegenwart. Ansätze und Positionen, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, 39-57 Said, Edward W. (1995). Orientalism. New York, Penguin Books. Sandkühler, Hans Jörg (2004). ‘Pluralism, cultures of knowledge, transculturality, and fundamental rights’, in Sandkühler, H. J. and Hong-Bin Lim (eds), Transculturality – Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics. Frankfurt/M, Peter Lang. Schaeffer, Robert K. (1997). Understanding Globalization. The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change. Oxford, Rowman & Littlefied. Scharmer, Otto C. (2004). Theorie U: Leading Profound Innovation and Change by Presencing Emerging Futures. MIT. [Online] www.ottoscharmer.com Scharmer, Otto C. (2009) Theorie U. Von der Zukunft her führen. Presencing als soziale Technik. Heidelberg, Carl-Auer. Scharmer’s Theory U and self-transcending knowledge: www.dialogonleadership.org Schein, Edgar H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Schein, Edgar H. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (unknown). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. [Online]. Available at www.solonline.org/res/wp/10006.html


238


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

239

Scholtes, Peter R. (1998). The Leader’s Handbook. A Guide to Inspiring Your People and Managing the Daily Workflow. New York, McGraw-Hill. Schreyögg, Georg (2008). Organisation. Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung. Mit Fallstudien. Wiesbaden, Gabler. Senge, Peter et al. (2004). Presence – Human Purpose and the Field of the Future. Cambridge, Society for Organizational Learning. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London, Random House. Sennett, Richard (2000). Der flexible Mensch. Die Kultur des neuen Kapitalismus. Berlin, Siedler. Sennett, Richard (2004). Respect in a World of Inequality. New York, Norton & Company, Inc. Series of Culture Shock. A Guide to Customs and Etiquettes of Different Countries From Argentina to Vietnam. Singapore, Marshall Cavendish Editions. Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993). ‘The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory’, in Organization Science. 4(4), 577–594. Shiva, Vandana (1989). Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Development. New Delhi, Zed Books Simons, G.F., Vazquez, C. and Harris, P.R. (1993). Transcultural Leadership. Empowering the Diverse Workforce. Zürich, Gulf Publishing. SLEPT analysis tool: http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/downloads/theory/slept_ analysis.pdf Smith, M. K. (2001). ‘Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research’, in: The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. [Online]. Available at www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm Social responsibility and SROI: www.neweconomics.org Stacey, Ralph (1992). Managing the Unknowable. Strategic Boundaries between Order and Chaos in Organization. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Stogdill, Ralph M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership. A Survey of Theory and Research. New York, Free Press. Sue, D.W., Carter, R.T., Casas J. M., Fouad, N.A., Ivey, A.E., Jensen, M. et al. (1998). Multicultural Counseling Competencies. Individual and Organizational Development. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Tajfel, Henri (ed.) (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups. London, Academic Press. Tests and assessment tools: www.integralstrategies.org The need of dialogue in leadership: www.dialogonleadership.org Tichy, Noel and Eli Cohen (1997). The Leadership Engine. How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level. New York, HarperCollins Publishers. Tichy, Noel M. and Mary Anne Devanna (1986). The Transformational Leader. Toronto, Wiley & Sons. Thureau-Dangin, Philippe (1998). Die Ellenbogen Gesellschaft. Vom zerstörerischen Wesen der Konkurrenz. Frankfurt/Main, Fischer. Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding Diversity in Global Business. London, Brealey. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner: www.7d-culture.nl Turner, S. (1994). The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Tylor, Edward B. (1924). Primitive Culture. New York, Brentano.


Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being. Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent White Water. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Values-based leadership: www.valuescentre.com/leaders/sllconsciousness.htm Values-driven Culture: www.valuescentre.com Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1990). ‘Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-system’, in Theory, Culture & Society. No 7, 31–55. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H. and Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Solution. New York, Norton. Weick, K. E. and R. E. Quinn (1999). ‘Organizational change and development’, in Annual Revue Psychology, 50, 361–386. [Online]. Available at http://java.cs.vt. edu/public/classes/communities/readings/Weick&Quinn-1999.pdf Welsch, W. (1999). ‘Transculturality – the puzzling form of cultures today’, in Featherstone, M. and S. Lash (eds) Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. London, Sage. [On line]. Available at www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/ Western, Simon (2008). Leadership – A Critical Text. London, Sage. Wilk, Richard R. (1996). Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Boulder, Westview Press. Yip, J., Ernst, C. and Campbell, M. (2009) ‘Boundary spanning leadership. Mission critical perspectives from the executive suite. In: White Pater Series, 2009. 1–26. [Online]. Available at www.ccl.org/leadership/research/sharing/ index.aspx#whitePapers Yunus, M. (2006) Für eine Welt ohne Armut. Die Autobiographie des Friedensnobelpreisträgers. Mit Aan Jolis. Bergisch Gladbach, Lübbe GmbH. Zaleznik, A. (2004). Managers and Leaders. Are They Different? in Harvard Business Review, 82, pp. 74–81. Zeleny, Jeff (2008, January 28). ‘Kennedy calls Obama “New Generation of Leadership” ’, in The New York Times. [Online]. Available at www.nytimes. com/2008/01/08/us/politics/


240 Bibliography


10/5/2010 10:12:33 AM

Abbreviations and Acronyms Center for Creative Leadership Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness project Socio-cultural, legal, economic and ecological, political, technological dimensions T-COM Trans-Cultural Competence PESTEL Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legislative factors of analysis 7-S Structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, staff SPK System of Profound Knowledge CSR Corporate Social Responsibility SROI Social Return on Investment


CCL® GLOBE SLEPT

241

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_12_abb.indd 241

10/5/2010 10:14:04 AM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_12_abb.indd 242

10/5/2010 10:14:04 AM

Ackermann Anderson, L., 73–74 Anderson, D., 191–196 Anderson, Dean, 73–74 Argyris, C., 87, 92–107 Assmann, J., 39 Avolio, B., 63, 170 Barrett, R., 89, 111–112 Bass, B., 52–53, 61–63 Beck, U., 129 Bennholdt-Thomsen, V., 121–122 Bennis, W., 44, 55–56, 63, 98, 120, 147 Bourdieu, P., 16 Brenton, A., 71, 95, 139 Burns, J., 52, 60 Cameron, K., 71, 190 Castles, S., 13–14 CCL, 44, 191 Chabod, F., 12 Conger, J., 53, 63 Connerley, M., 38, 126–128, 175 Cox, D., 157 Deming, E., 90–92, 97 Deresky, H., 123–125 Dornheim, J., 11–12, 132 Driskill, G., 71, 95, 139 Duffy, F., 60–61 Durkheim, E., 120

Giddens, A., 112 Goleman, D., 96 Gramsci, A., 125, 133 Greene, R., 161 Gupta, A., 19 Hall, E., 27–32, 35 Hayek, N., 164–166 Herder, J., 11 Hersey, P., 48–52, 63 Higgs, M., 46, 58–64, 96 Hofstede, G., 20–32, 126–127 Honneth, A., 2 Hoogvelt, A., 4, 16 Inayatullah, S., 106–107, 117, 217 Keyton, J., 68–72, 139 Klein, E., 95 Kluckhohn, F., 18–20, 33 Kotter, J., 56, 63, 148, 159, 209–210, 228–229 Kouzes, J., 39, 43, 48, 64, 71, 210 Kroeber, A., 18 Kuhn, T., 36, 93 Lewin, K., 36–38, 78, 90–92 Likert, R., 129 Luhmann, N., 69, 108–110

Ferguson, J., 19 Foucault, M., 29, 59 Freire, P., 159 French & Raven, 58 Funakawa, A., 45, 122, 145, 192

Maslow, A., 88–89 McAlister, D., 114–115 McAuley, J., 71 McEwan, T., 71, 112–113 McFarlin, D., 197 McSweeney, B., 17, 29 Moallem, M., 14

Gardner, J., 44–46 Gardner & Dunham, 77, 80 Geertz, C., 29, 41

Nadler, D., 86 Northouse, P., 44–52 Nye, J., 59


Author Index

243

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_13_aind.indd 243

10/5/2010 12:45:51 PM

244 Author Index

Quinn, R., 71, 75–79, 90, 107, 190 Randall, J., 82 Raynolds, J., 61, 135–136, 143, 218–219 Robbins, S., 36, 46, 54, 70, 77 Rogers, C., 155–161 Rugman, A., 26, 122–127 Russell-Bennett, R., 111–112 Said, E., 12, 14, 32, 133 Sandkühler, H., 14, 132 Schaeffer, R., 15, 121 Scharmer, Otto C., 146, 213, 216

Schein, E., 32–43, 90–94, 98–99, 183–185, 193–197, 219–221 Scholtes, P., 91–98, 129, 190, 229 Schön, D., 92–107 Senge, P., 84–87, 95, 146, 148 Sennett, R., 2, 155 Simons, G., 121, 182 Stogdill, R., 46 Tichy, N., 45, 52–54 Trompenaars, F., 20–31 Tylor, E., 11–18


Parsons, T., 69 Pasmore, W., 193 Pawar, M., 157 Pedersen, P., 38, 126–128, 175 Porter, M., 111 Posner, B., 39, 43, 48, 64, 71, 210 Prahalad, C., 111

Vygotsky, L., 32, 41 Watzlawick, P., 197 Weick, K., 75–79, 90, 107 Welsch, W., 14, 132–138 Western, S., 44, 59–61 Yip, J., 192 Yunus, M., 113 Zaleznik, A., 55

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_13_aind.indd 244

10/5/2010 12:45:51 PM

accountability, 59, 61, 67, 110, 131, 200, 222 active listening 87, 102–103, 117, 181 active reflection, 35, 83, 152–161, 199, 207, 223–224 adaptation, 81, 93–94, 134, 147, 214 continous, 78 cultural, 131 external, 35, 39, 41, 68–69 flexible, 49, 228 of the leaders, 185 personal, 215 short-run, 78 aesthetic, 88, 163 accomplishment, 165 culture of, 163 meaning, 151, 165 performance, 149 aesthetical action, 65, 163, 201 aesthetical aspects, 141 aesthetical function, 163 aesthetical orientations, 33 aesthetical survival, 228 aesthetics and ethics, 150, 158 alienation, 70, 81, 86–87, 96, 109, 222 incorporated, 137 American, 127–128 anchor(s), 66, 79, 146, 165, 213 reliable, 50 anchoring, 56, 141, 218–219, 223 anxiety, 36, 79–80, 86–88 of change, 39, 41, 79, 86 overcoming, 43, 97, 99, 118, 155, 214 approach(es), 4–5, 37, 45, 51, 63, 77, 139, 154, 156, 161, 190, 197 analysis, 74 anthropological, 219 behaviors’, 48 consequentialist, 60 constructivist, 19 critical, 45

deductive, 171 deontological, 60 empowerment, 152, 159 global management, 125 Herder’s homogenization, 12 holistic, 113–114, 117, 135, 151 inductive, 171 integrated, 152 integrated-perspectives, 157 interpretative, 26 motivational, 197 path-goal, 50 person-centered, 150–151, 155–156 situational, 48 symbolic interactionalist, 68 synergistic, 147 systemic, 19, 69 teleological, 60 traits’, 46 transformation, 98 Tylor’s cultural evolutionism, 12 Western, 27 assertiveness, 26, 46, 175 attachment, 88, 108, 110, 142, 222 collective, 16 emotional, 53, 55 quality of, 71 social, 135 strategies of, 70 awakeness, 159 awakening, 95, 133, 139, 159, 208, 217, 223 awareness, 14, 36, 49, 61, 72, 85, 91, 98, 104, 133, 139, 149, 155, 165, 181, 204, 216, 221, 224 for change, 142, 146, 160, 189, 217–218 conscious, 35, 98, 159 of limits, 172, 216, 226 personal, 47, 105, 136, 148 awareness-raiser, 101, 104, 118, 120, 189, 191, 214, 216, 223–224, 229


Subject Index

245

10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_14_sind.indd 245

10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

Subject Index

blind spot, 91, 94, 98, 106, 222 cultural, 133 challenges and change, 5, 41, 45–47, 59, 193–194 change, 37, 42, 68, 75–117 agency, 189 agent, 76, 79, 94–106 climate, 222 continuous, 17, 76–84 cultural, 6–7, 15, 27, 38–39, 43, 80, 82, 120–122, 137, 191 developmental, 73 direction of, 76, 132, 170, 189 discontinuous, 84, 97, 143 drivers of, 115 dynamics, 76, 101, 114 environmental, 18, 39, 134, 184, 189 episodic, 76–79 evolutionary, 39–40, 75 goals of, 52, 80, 219 heteronymous, 81 limited, 42 management, 6, 76, 95, 107, 115, 169, 189, 191, 227–228 mode of, 76 need for, 49, 62, 83, 142, 159, 194 positive, 53, 144 radical, 42, 227 rapid, 54, 82, 107, 138 social, 113, 162, 170 stages of, 37–40, 76 structural, 64, 68, 76–77 types of, 76–77 unit of, 76 urgency to, 36 change and development, 4–6, 19, 32, 39, 42, 66, 71, 73–84, 145, 184 China/Chinese, 22, 150, 181, 182 Citizenship, 157 coaching, see training co-creating, 111, 216 cohesion, 15, 28, 53, 83, 89, 144, 209, 224 development, 135–136, 180, 198, 202–204

collaboration, 65, 83, 124, 144, 146, 151–153, 177, 192, 198, 201–203, 209–211 collective economic lives, 229 collective learning ability, 80, 87, 96–97, 148, 162, 177, 195, 204, 208–213 see also learning collective mastery, 221–224 see also self-mastery collectivism, 21, 25, 26–27 see also individualism comfort zone, 7, 47, 52, 57, 99, 106, 131, 162, 218–219, 221–225 communication, 15–16, 19, 54, 72, 74, 117, 124, 135, 185, 228 for change, 77, 95, 102, 110, 116 competence/skills, 161, 174, 221 culture of, 153 dysfunctional, 130 interpersonal, 155, 215 non-verbal, 28, 215 relationship-based, 16, 54, 87, 146 strategies, 118, 145 styles of, 29, 33 training programs, 24 communitarianism, 113–114 community, 38, 41–42, 52–53, 62, 66, 101–105, 136, 143 cooperative, 201 culture, 93 learning, 198, 204–206 levels, 139 needs, 113–114, 145 sense of, 110, 197 spirit of, 65, 159, 206 community and family, 28, 88 community and society, 106–107, 204 community at large, 113, 150, 223 competence, 64–67, 130, 139, 156, 184, 189, 198, 208 acquisition of, 91–94 conscious, 92–94, 209 social, 206 unconscious, 92–94, 160, 214 competencies of leadership, 5, 62–66


246


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

competitive, 22, 34 behaviors, 16 efficiency, 185 environment, 90 landscape, 190, 195, 199 markets, 113–114 process, 205 selection, 75 survival, 121 thinking, 192 world, 105 components of leadership, 45, 65, 139 concept of space, 20 concept of time, 27, 34 conceptualization, 6, 19, 49, 74 confidence, 48, 65, 83, 99, 108–114, 126, 133, 150–155, 213 collective, 87, 219 mutual, 179, 201, 211 conscientiousness, 7, 59, 65, 83, 141, 146, 183, 221–223 conscientization, 141, 159, 205, 214, 223 construction, 12, 29, 30, 63, 69, 133, 135, 139, 175 social, 12, 18, 41, 68, 75–77, 226 container paradigm, 11–12, 14, 17, 18, 29, 31, 93, 132–134, 208 contigency theory, 63 controlling, 55 cooperation, 15, 66, 69, 144–149, 192, 202–208 quality of, 205 co-presencing, 216 core values, 30, 58–61, 66, 70, 229 corporate responsibility, 43, 70 co-sensing, 216 credibility, 59, 61, 67, 79, 96, 110, 130–131, 136, 148, 170, 179, 209 cultural analysis, 95–96, 100–104, 128, 193 cultural awareness, 3, 7, 42, 50, 138, 140–141, 173–174, 190, 211, 213–216 cultural evolutionism, 12 cultural hegemony of leadership, 6, 126, 137, 139

247

cultural relativism and universalism, 12–13 cultural transformation, 66, 82, 87–89, 91, 111–112, 139, 145 culture, 4, 11–32, 121, 132–137, 183–184, 215 adaptive, 42 basics of, 151 change of, 39, 71, 194 change-oriented, 43 characteristics of, 184 of communication, 153 corporate, 36, 122, 130, 184 diffusion of, 134 dominant, 27, 70, 133, 145, 202 dynamics of, 128, 145, 148 effective, 42 hegemonic, 133, 137 hierarchy of, 194 inclusive, 144 inner layer of, 92 leadership, 194 national, 14, 20, 26, 54, 127, 132 new, 119, 135, 164, 191, 212 obstructive, 229 old, 43 of an organization, 56, 111 present-based-past, 71 quality of, 66 reference, 70–72, 125–126, 130, 133 representative of, 148, 226 shift of, 74, 93 strong, 70–71 of survival, 139 20th century, 11 use, 100, 106, 202 culture and business, 122, 182 culture and leadership, 5, 15, 38–41, 60, 137, 139, 213 culture and management, 20–31 see also management cultures, 11–12, 17, 20–29, 38, 54, 71, 81, 99, 105, 121, 132, 139, 170–172, 184, 227 collectivism-oriented, 20–29 diffuse, 25 emotional, 25 individualism-oriented, 20–29


Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

Subject Index

cultures – continued marginalized, 125 multitude of, 126 neutral, 25 particularistic, 25 reference, 6, 121, 157 specific, 25 universalistic, 25 culture shock, 17 deconstruction, 30, 128 Denmark, 22, 128 deontological, 60 dialectical theories, 75–76 dialogue, 79, 87–88, 92, 97, 117, 148–150, 158–159, 199, 205, 210 sensitive, 137 differentiation, 2, 26, 29, 132, 202 Bennis’s, 86 different ways of life, 16 discourse(s), 2, 14, 17–18, 29, 66, 125, 128, 132–138 business, 11 of change, 66 contemporary, 12 political, 44 set of, 69 disintegration, 2, 70, 76, 81 see also integration distrust, 70, 109, 144, 203 see also trust diversification, 2–4, 81, 121 diversity, 2–7, 13–18, 60, 67, 70, 82–84, 95, 134–136, 145–147, 155–157, 192, 202–204, 224 of cultures, 81 double-loop learning, 87, 93, 106 see also learning EASIER, 216 economic, 2, 6, 229 activities, 14, 113, 222 agents, 14 analysis, 156–157, 185 challenges, 2–3, 14–15, 77, 185 changes, 2, 6, 18, 112, 120, 206, 222, 227 costs, 117 crisis, 62, 183

integration, 2, 13, 153 limits, 16 management, 6, 117 moderation, 62 neoliberalism, 4, 16, 113, 125, 222 power, 122, 125 regulation, 13, 47, 114 survival, 4, 62, 121, 160, 190, 206, 229 value, 110, 114, 165 economics, 5, 16, 90, 138, 145–147, 164 empowerment, 152, 158–159, 205, 210 collective, 87 employee, 89 envisioning, 65, 75, 87, 214, 216, 228 see also vision equality, 204 equity, 204 ERASMUS Program, 156 ethics, 16, 58–62, 66–67, 97, 144 business, 4–5, 113, 146–147 ethics and aesthetics, 149–150, 158 ethics and value creation, 16, 118 ethnocentric, 122–125, 145, 216 evolutionary theories, 75 excellent way of life, 12, 80–81, 94, 125 faith, 53, 75, 110, 113, 142, 195 loss of, 108 familiarity, 108–118 femininity, 21 financial controls, 122 financial crisis, 15, 169 financial maximization, 164 financial performance, 117 four eyes, 54, 140, 144, 222 four Is, 53–54, 140, 144 fragmentation, 2, 13, 15, 36, 83, 222 mental, 36 overcoming, 103, 203 social, 3 fragmentation and anxiety, 36, 218 France, 23, 128 frame breaking, 93, 104


248


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

gender, 6, 21, 25–26, 182–184 globalization, 2–3, 11–18 challenges of, 228 consequences of, 120, 138 drivers of, 189, 190 paradoxes of, 15 globalization and contradiction, 14 globalization and fragmentation, 222 globalization and homogenization, 121 globalization and pluralism, 48, 128, 157 heroes, 29–32, 62 high context, 28–29 homogenization, 11–12, 18 human resource management, 47, 88, 123, 170, 193 see also management human rights, 13, 117 IBM, 20 identity, 37, 41, 68, 79, 112, 208, 215 collective, 12, 35, 170, 209 corporate, 41, 71, 113, 215 crisis, 13 national, 13–14, 18, 134 imagined geography, 12 imagined national differences, 14 incompetence, 91–94, 98, 136 conscious of, 91–94, 214 unconscious, 91–94 see also competence India/Indian, 17, 23, 191 individualism, 21, 25, 26, 113–114 inequality, 13, 16–17, 20–21 inherited practices, 70 insecurity, 50 integration, 30, 68–69, 74, 76, 94, 158 economic, 2 external, 83, 160 inclusive, 204 internal, 35, 39, 41, 68, 71, 83, 90, 93, 160 policy of, 14 see also disintegration

249

integrity, 43, 45, 59, 61–65, 70, 88, 110, 134, 148, 179, 200 intelligence, 45–47, 170, 172–173, 204 emotional, 58–60, 84, 96, 104, 131, 161 multiple intelligences, 202 intercultural communication, 174, 215 intercultural conflict, 2 intercultural differences, 215 intercultural encounter, 215 intercultural fields, 174–176, 183 intercultural groups, 155 intercultural interactions, 43 intercultural irritations, 215 interdependence, 2, 15, 66, 138, 144, 153, 157, 160, 210 internal and external connectivity, 89 internal and external control, 26 internal and external environment, 89, 145 internal and external integration, 160 internal and external learning, 144 internal and external pressures, 157 internal and external problems, 35, 206 internal and external resources, 81 internal and external structures, 206 internal cohesion, 89 internalization, 92 internalized, 6, 35, 90, 96, 107, 134, 142, 191, 213–214 internal motivation, 20, 120 international business, 122, 166 international communities, 18 international companies, 4, 11 international competencies, 173 international context/fields, 7, 17, 126, 148, 171–175, 215 international economics/ economy, 16 international enterprises, 14 international experiences, 21, 173 international identities, 14 internationalization, 14, 189 international levels, 13


Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

international management/ managers, 4, 13, 20, 122–124, 127, 148, 171–173, 197 see also management international market, 16 international negotiation, 153 international organization, 32, 179 international outlook, 196 international relations, 155, 190 international strategies, 4, 123–124 international training programs, 17, 156, 215 international workforce, 11, 14, 121 interpersonal sensitivity, 59, 66–67, 183, 221 interrelationship(s), 5–6, 15, 85, 97, 100, 135 introspection, 86, 133, 155, 170, 179, 212 intuitiveness, 59, 66, 221–223 Japan/Japanese, 17, 23, 54, 127–128, 181 Japanese tea ceremony, 149 Japanese training programs, 217 knowledge of cultures, 148 see also culture, cultures labor market(s), 112 leadership, 2–6, 38–40, 44–67 authoritarian, 127–131, 134 behaviors of, 48–52 charismatic, 47, 52, 63 collective, 216 competencies of, 99–119, 224, 229; see also competencies of leadership democratic, 129–130, 134 development, 112, 189–190 directive, 50, 139 global, 26 individual, leadership, 216 laissez-faire, 38 new paradigm of, 52, 63, 128 partizipative, 50, 126–130, 134 path-goal, 50, 138 proactive, 83 quality, 48, 66, 80, 164

reactive, 83 relationship-oriented, 7, 50–55, 151–154, 208 situational, 49, 119, 138 strategic, 50, 63 strategies of, 49–50, 59, 192–195, 216 strong, 7, 189 style of, 17, 19, 48–49, 63, 98, 121–132 traits of, 45–47, 63 transactional, 52–55, 56 trans-cultural, 4–5, 66, 100–104, 116, 119–161 transformational, 47, 52–55, 106, 108, 138, 170 visionary, 3, 62 would-be, 171–178 learning, 35–40, 65–67, 78–79, 97, 162, 189, 197, 208, 220–221 ability and disability, 85–87, 95, 98, 121, 141, 158, 192, 208–213 ambiance/climate, 43, 97, 199 anxiety, 99 attitudes, 127 barriers, 96 context, 149 continuous, 75, 87, 89, 146, 155, 177, 196 cooperative, 104, 145, 154, 201–206, 224 cross-cultural, 104 culture, 145, 184 design, 149, 214 disciplines of, 85–87, 90 double-loop, 87, 93, 106 environment, 7, 135, 159, 179–180, 190, 201–206 experimental, 201 habits, 97, 129, 182 organization, 7, 84–96, 103, 145, 151 society, 87, 96, 101, 198 styles/types of, 97, 131, 202 task-oriented, 55, 127–128 transformative, 91, 96, 100, 120, 176, 198 urgency of, 96 life cycle theories, 75–76, 94, 215


250 Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

lifelong learning, 6, 85, 149, 160, 193, 206–207 see also learning life quality, 16, 77, 113, 142–143, 163, 198 limits of competences, 216 limits of knowledge, 98 limits of resources, 211 localization, 157 locus of control, 28, 77–80, 109 long-term orientation, 22 low context, 27–29 management, 3, 17, 20, 55–59, 73, 103, 108, 151, 163, 189, 228 change, 6, 63, 73–84, 89, 95, 104, 154, 169, 184, 221 cross-cultural, 50 economic, 6 global, 125 programs, 175 of relationship, 185 skills, 43, 57, 162 strategies, 95, 122, 156, 226 style, 120, 122 tools, 91, 115 management and leadership, 6, 55–57, 64, 97, 194, 198 managing diversity/management of diversity, 26, 38–40, 57, 67, 119, 162 masculinity, 21 measure culture, 184–185 see also culture mental anchor, 219 mental frame, 105, 154 mental map, 153, 157, 164, 202, 217 mental models, 86–87, 90–93, 97, 148, 164 mental paradigm shift, 93 mental processes, 68, 143 mental visualization, 218 mentee, 198–200 mentor, 53, 103, 150, 195, 199, 209–213 leader as, 7, 89, 99, 104, 164, 190, 198, 201, 208 mentoring, 97, 104, 120, 150, 160, 194, 198–199, 224

251

mentoring trans-cultural competence, 196–200, 209–213, 223 Mexico, 23, 128 migration, 2, 11, 18 mistrust, 70, 87, 126, 130, 134 see also trust mobility, 2–4, 11, 18, 119, 121 mobility and speed, 106, 132, 148, 162 mobility and volatility, 27, 143 monochronic, 27–28 moral conceptions/morals, 11 moral consensus, 34 moral conviction, 170 morality, 13, 52 moral value system, 13 multinational backgrounds, 51 multinational corporation, 20 multinational environments, 164 multinational group(s), 51, 54 multinationals, 121 multinational university network, 180 needs, 7, 11, 50, 53, 88–89, 104, 120, 130, 142, 144, 145, 161, 171, 197, 205, 212 collective, 19, 52, 113–114, 130–131, 180, 212 consumer, 113, 145, 222 employee’s, 114, 126–127, 129, 184 global and local, 4, 62, 114, 149, 229 individual, 53–54, 88–89, 113, 130, 170, 177, 226 others’, 54, 65–66, 98, 134, 149, 155, 225 personal, 68, 86, 93, 98, 141, 147, 184, 222 neoliberalism, 4 network, 122–124, 158, 183, 212 of different partners, 160 of empowering attachment, 198 of organizations, 153 of relationships, 87, 142, 150, 204 structure, 125, 192 networking, 87, 159, 198 network-thinking patterns, 204


Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

Obama, Barack, 3 organization(s), 2–8, 30–32, 38, 42, 44, 52, 55–56, 68–118, 123–125, 130, 170, 193–195, 226–228 development of, 19, 42 management, 43, 52, 62, 72, 84; see also management transformation of, 19, 29, 36 types, 121–122 organizational change, 36–37, 40, 43, 49, 54, 57, 68–88, 73–94 organizational community, 68–69, 199 organizational culture, 5, 32–41, 60, 68–72, 80, 90, 151, 190, 226–227 organizational life, 60, 97 organizational needs, 74, 130, 205, 214 organizational performance, 52, 106, 189 organizational structure(s), 33, 69, 73, 121–125, 144, 220–221 out-of-awareness, 7, 159, 213, 217, 228–229 ownership, 71, 81, 113, 115, 146, 170, 177, 180 of change, 84, 178 emotional, 80–81, 96 of the survival’s quality, 210 paradigm shift, 5, 36, 42 cultural, 7–8, 100, 112–114, 145, 228 mental, 93 organizational, 97 participation, 14, 83, 102, 110, 127–128, 139, 213–214 particularism, 25 personal development, 162, 193 personality development, 47, 51, 107, 170 personal mastery, 85–86, 148, 170 pluralism, 11, 16–17, 48, 75, 120 cultural, 26 of values, 16, 84, 163 polarization, 2, 222 polycentric, 122–124 polychronic, 27, 29

power(s), 16, 24, 58–62, 64, 99, 157, 205 of anxiety, 80, 86, 99 asymmetric, 16–17, 70, 122, 135–137, 162, 178 cultural, 125, 134 distance, 26–27, 50, 126–127 economic, 122 of existence, 81 fragmentation of, 13, 70, 133 ideological, 114 of leadership, 100–102, 110, 139, 140–147, 223–224 misuse, 79 negative, 210–211 political power, 4, 12–13, 60, 122 of sharing, 123, 158, 202, 205, 210–211 of transformation, 159 types of, 58–59 xolonial, 121–122 power and authority, 64 power and competition, 16, 79, 121, 138 power and ethics, 58–61 power and inequality, 21, 179 power and influence, 45, 82, 122, 158 power and love, 34, 65 power and risks, 61 power relations, 64–67, 137, 179, 216 practice culture, 18, 30, 101 process-oriented cultural concept, 6 see also culture profound knowledge, 90 see also system of profound knowledge progress-oriented paradigm, 93 see also paradigm shift property rights, 113–114 prophets of quality, 90 pro-vision, 108 see also vision


252 Subject Index

quality management, 172 see also management quality of knowledge, 148, 155–160 quality of optimization, 90


10/5/2010 1:34:58 PM

quality of organizational development, 60, 69 quality of the values, 149 reason(s) to be, 35–36, 101, 115, 143, 223, 227 reason(s) to be more, 37, 96, 101, 110, 143, 145, 190, 198, 200, 223–224 reconstruction, 14, 30 reflective action, 35, 152, 154–161, 199, 207, 214, 223–224 refreezing, 7, 37–40, 43 see also unfreezing regiocentric, 123–124 relationship(s), 17–19, 27–29, 34, 48–50, 70, 89, 97, 123–124, 199, 215 interactive, 29, 81, 199 interpersonal, 5 long-term, 28 quality of, 48, 58, 60, 64, 69, 135, 216 relationship-based communication, 16, 53–54, 81, 199 relationship-oriented behaviors, 48–50, 127–128 relationship(s) between leaders and followers, 19, 48–52, 62–67, 135, 176–180 relationships building, 103–116, 136, 148, 174–175, 211–213, 223–224 relationships strategies, 70 relativism, 11–13 see also culture relearning, 90, 99 research, 6, 217 anthropological, 128 large-scale, 29–32 long-term, 171 practice-based, 193 training research, 47 resilience, 47, 99, 142, 154–155, 162, 189, 218, 219 emotional, 7, 59–60, 66, 88, 140–141, 146, 183, 223 quality of, 142 resistance, 36–37, 79–84, 96–97, 102–103, 133, 140, 144–145, 210, 220, 228

253

to learn, 74, 97, 160 resource scarcity, 75 revolutionary transformation, 80 risk(s), 13, 17, 61, 65, 73, 81, 94, 104, 110, 143, 165, 221 analysis of, 128, 221 of ascription, 141 awareness, 129, 141 of being blindsided, 98 of being heteronymous, 108 as a chance, 143, 180 evaluation of, 109 key, 221 management, 107, 129 measuring, 184 pains, 110 society, 129 taking, 174, 203, 210 of uncertainties, 128, 137 risk-seeking and risk-avoiding, 109 safety, 37, 60, 78, 86–88, 142–146, 155–161, 211–212, 218–221 inner, 102 shared safety, 60, 69 steps of, 108 security, 39, 50, 83, 88, 175, 212 self-actualization, 88 self-awareness, 59, 66, 83, 101, 141, 155, 179, 185, 201, 208–214, 222–223 self-confidence, 7, 45–47, 60, 88, 142–143, 162, 202, 221, 228 self-consistency, 60 self-esteem, 86, 88–89 self-framed boundaries, 117 self-fulfilling prophecy, 144, 227 self-image, 47, 112, 202 self-insight, 43, 47, 86, 98–102, 141–142 self-interest, 53, 115, 121 self-management, 146–147, 182 self-mastery, 7, 86, 119–120, 140, 147, 150–167, 221–224 self-reflection, 87, 106, 133–134 self-transcendence, 88 senior management, 123, 129 see also management seven-S, 115–116


Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:59 PM

shared home base, 16, 222 short-term orientation, 22 Singapore, 191 SLEPT, 156–161, 227 social class(es), 30, 125 dominant, 125 solvent, 31 social division, 3, 15 socialization, 30, 35 socialization backgrounds, 121 social networks, 14, 70, 207 see also network social return on investment, 117–118, 227 socio-cultural, 156–157 background, 209 context, 46, 145 differentiations, 202 dimensions, 185 entanglement, 3 fields, 173 forces, 15 improvement, 227 positions, 125 Spain, 24, 128 subcultures, 17, 27, 38, 70, 72, 184 sustainable quality, 163 sustainable survival, 43, 106, 117, 120, 140–142, 145, 160, 165, 195, 205, 223–224 survival(s), 16, 42, 71, 77, 88–89, 93–94, 100, 107, 110–111, 164, 222–229 aesthetical and ethical, 228 anxiety, 93, 99, 143, 210 art of, l, 107 business, 222 collective, 204, 206 common, 121, 146 competitive, 121 economic, 62, 121, 206 excellent, 101 group’s, 196, 213 guilt, 93 long-term, 43, 169, 221 mission of, 35 of the organization, 198, 220 pain of, 87 personal, 69

politics, 112 quality of, 210 strategies of, 35, 83, 112, 153, 189, 190, 227 transformational way of, 199 Swatch Group, 164–166 Sweden, 24, 126 symbols, 29–33, 68, 72 system change, 112, 115, 220 system of profound knowledge, 90–91, 96–97, 100 systems thinking, 85, 140 T-Ching, 150–153 team building, 73, 103, 135, 209–213 team learning, 87, 148 team spirit, 53, 103, 176, 209 quality of, 135 technique of questions, 200 Teishu, 149–153, 160, 163, 165, 201, 208 teleological, 60, 75 territoriality, 12–14 theories, see approach(es) theories-in-use, 92 Theory U, 106, 216 top management, 39, 87, 95, 122, 129, 148, 210 training, 7, 46–48, 73, 90, 146, 162, 177–178, 185, 191–196, 206, 214, 221–224 communication, 24 cross-cultural, 17 professional, 149 programs, 17, 31, 123, 156, 171 research, 47 trans-cultural competence, 66–67, 147–161, 189–195, 211–214 quality of, 154–161 see also competence trans-cultural leadership, see leadership trans-cultural spirit, 135 trans-cultural transformation, 121, 137, 144, 145, 152–153, 164–165, 195, 224 trans-culture, 45, 116, 119, 132–138, 175, 228


254 Subject Index


10/5/2010 1:34:59 PM

Subject Index

uncertainty, 39, 59, 74, 142, 162–163 avoidance, 21, 26–27 unfreezing, 7, 37–40, 43 Unilever, 125 United States, 3, 11, 15, 24, 127–128 universalism, 12–13, 25 unlearning, 6, 36, 43, 66, 90–91, 93, 99, 107, 170, 202, 217

value creation, 110–115, 162, 191, 195, 227 viability, 16, 42, 110, 145, 229 economic, 190 future, 71, 224 strategy of, 107, 162 sustainable, 185 virtual circle, 111 vision, 16, 53, 65, 83, 115, 151, 221–224 actualized, 111–112, 170, 210 collective, 165 common, 135–136, 153, 159, 205–206 convincing, 50 core vision, 142 corporate, 117 creating, 96–97 design, 144 direction of, 192 empowering, 120 inspiration of, 55 long-term, 114 personal, 148 positive, 43, 110, 219 selling, 143, 222 shared, 65, 67, 70, 86, 116, 147 of survival, 163 of transformation, 66, 81


transculture, 132–133, 137 see also culture transformational change, 74–75, 80, 82, 92, 162 transnational community, 14 trans-nationalism, 14 transnational movements, 128 transnational networks, 221 travel more, 98, 133 trust, 49–53, 79–84, 99, 108–110, 116–120, 145–146, 150–155, 170, 183, 209 climate of, 103, 175–176, 179, 182 enhance and ensure, 135–136, 200–202 learn to, 180, 197, 202, 211, 213 loss of, 142 misuse of, 221 trustworthy, 19, 46, 60, 126, 134, 174, 199 two-way learning process, 199 see also learning

255

wake-up call, 189, 190, 222


10/5/2010 1:34:59 PM

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to ETH Zuerich - PalgraveConnect - 2011-05-13 10.1057/9780230304185 - Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation, Isabelle My Hanh Derungs 9780230_280939_14_sind.indd 256

10/5/2010 1:34:59 PM

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation

Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Classroom Dialogues

Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Classroom Dialogues

Transcultural Cinema

Transcultural Cinema

Transcultural Areas

Fourier Transformation for Pedestrians

Transformation groups for beginners

Fourier transformation for pedestrians

Fourier transformation for pedestrians

Transformation groups for beginners

Transcultural Japan (Asia's Transformations)

Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach (Transcultural Healthcare (Purnell))

Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach (Transcultural Healthcare (Purnell))

Leadership for Healthcare

Leadership for Leaders

Leadership for Excellence

Leadership for Safe Schools

Advances in Contemporary Transcultural Nursing

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Trans-Cultural Leadership for Transformation

Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Classroom Dialogues

Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Classroom Dialogues

Transcultural Cinema

Transcultural Cinema

Transcultural Areas

Fourier Transformation for Pedestrians

Transformation groups for beginners

Fourier transformation for pedestrians

Fourier transformation for pedestrians

Transformation groups for beginners

Transcultural Japan (Asia's Transformations)

Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach (Transcultural Healthcare (Purnell))

Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach (Transcultural Healthcare (Purnell))

Leadership for Healthcare

Leadership for Leaders

Leadership for Excellence

Leadership for Safe Schools

Advances in Contemporary Transcultural Nursing

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Recommend Documents