Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand: A cross-cultural study.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand:
A cross-cultural study.
Dale Pfeifer, Massey University
Matene Love, Victoria University
culture, such as extreme individualism, may
This study investigates the leadership render American leadership practices unique;
characteristics of New Zealand’s two largest that is, different from the approaches in most
cultural groups, Māori and Pakeha. It examines areas of the world (Dorfman, 1996; Hofstede,
the extent to which these leadership 1991). Therefore, while some applicability to
characteristics are rooted in the unique contexts other cultures has been found, these theories are
of each culture. Followers’ perceptions of largely inadequate to explain or predict
leadership behaviour were examined using the leadership across cultures, especially those in
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). the unique multicultural context of Aotearoa
The hypothesis that leadership is deeply rooted New Zealand. As a whole, New Zealand’s
in the broader cultural contexts was supported. leadership requirements are likely to be different
This provides tentative evidence that leadership from other countries’ because of the different
concepts are culturally endorsed in New values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour that exist
Zealand. These findings, if substantiated with here (Gold & Webster, 1990), but internally the
further, more in-depth research, may prove differences may be even more marked.
crucial to public communicators seeking ways
to disseminate information to these groups, Literature Review
particularly when working through opinion
leaders. Cross-cultural research has identified
differences in what constitutes leadership
Introduction behaviour from culture to culture (House, 1999;
Gerstner & Day, 1994; Brodbeck, 2000; Den
Since the early 1930s, leadership study has Hartog, 1999). This suggests leadership
been a well recognised academic pursuit (Bass, behaviour may be deeply rooted in broader
1990). Despite a large volume of leadership cultural contexts. The fit between expected
research, however, there is no single generally leadership behaviour and individual behaviour
accepted definition of leadership (Bass, 1990). in leadership positions has been shown to be
Most western definitions tend to focus on the important to the success of the leadership
notion of influence (Yukl, 1998). However, process (Bass, 1998). Therefore the
based on the well-established idea that there are identification of differences in leadership
variations in values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour within the cultures of Aotearoa New
behaviour across cultures, it seems likely that Zealand may be important to the success of the
the meaning and importance of leadership also leadership process in cross-cultural
vary across cultures (Thomas, 2001). communication. The findings could have
Adler argues that, while many definitions of applications in internal communication for
leadership position themselves as global, they multicultural organisations, as well as in public
are not, because most ‘universal’ theories of information campaigns within and between
leadership fail to account for cultural context specific cultural groups.
(1999). Most commonly, they describe the
behaviour of leaders in one particular country, The Māori and Pakeha cultures, New
the United States (Peterson & Hunt, 1997). This Zealand’s two largest cultural groups, have been
is particularly unfortunate for understanding described as having distinct characteristics
global leadership since aspects of American (Willmot, 1989; Walker, 1989). They are
Pfeifer, D, & Love, M (2004). Leadership in Aotearoa NewZealand; A cross-cultural study. PRism 2. Available 1
at: http://praxis.massey.ac.nzdistinguished by the total collection of with experience in things both Māori and
behaviour patterns, values and beliefs that Pakeha (King, 1997). Tapsell (1997) describes a
characterises each cultural group as a whole. new Māori management style, incorporating
Yet in other studies, these cultures have been long-standing cultural leadership qualities with
collectivised as ‘New Zealanders’, despite their those learnt from business and management
many differences. It is important to recognise courses across New Zealand.
the historical and contemporary differences of
these cultures and how these distinctions may Pakeha New Zealanders
influence the leadership process.
Pakeha is a term, coined by Māori, referring
Māori New Zealanders to non-Māori New Zealanders of European
heritage. Although the exact meaning of the
The Māori people are the indigenous race of term Pakeha has been disputed, Pakeha culture
New Zealand. Traditionally, Māori society is can be defined as “membership in the dominant
characterised by communal living, with social group and by a particular relationship to the
groupings based on extended families. Hapu Māori and to the social and physical
(sub tribe) and iwi (tribes) are usually based environment of New Zealand” (Spoonley, 1994,
upon descent from a common ancestor p. 89). Pakeha society is characterised by a high
(Mahuika, 1992). Patterson (1992) describes degree of individualism and an emphasis upon
Māori culture as having collective ideals, with personal responsibility and independence rather
wealth and power being attributed to the group than the collective group (Hofstede, 1980).
instead of the individual. Pakeha society can be described as an
While historical records document achievement-based society, where leadership
oppression of Māori culture by a dominant positions are occupied on the strength of merit,
Pakeha culture employing a variety of means and promotion is based on achievement (Smith,
including oppressive government policy, there Dugan, & Trompanaars, 1996). Founded on
has been a resurgence of Māori cultural identity. democratic principles, Pakeha leaders must
Walker (1989) argues that a resurgence of largely be deemed worthy of the position by the
confidence in Māori identity has manifested combination of individual achievements,
itself in cultural assertiveness. acceptance by the general public, and favourable
Māori leadership was traditionally exercised acceptance of what he or she intends to achieve
by male chieftainship and determined by (Ah Chong & Thomas, 1997).
primogeniture based on the first-born male in
any generation (Mahuika, 1992). Each Leadership Perceptions: Implicit Theories of
community was ruled by a rangatira (Māori Leadership
aristocracy), with the chief, or the first-born
male of the most senior family, endowed with Much of the early leadership study falls into
the title ariki. The literal meaning of rangatira is a category of research known as the trait
‘to weave people together’; a definition of approach in which the leader’s style,
leadership that encapsulates the interdependent behaviours, and specific actions were
and collectivist nature of Māori society determined, taking a leader-centric approach.
(Kennedy, 2000). Research from this perspective was
Several studies have been published on unsuccessful in defining a set of leadership
Māori leadership and its transition into its behaviours that would guarantee the
contemporary role in society (Mahuika, 1992; manifestation of the leadership process (Bass,
Whaiti, 1994; King, 2001; Ra, 2000). 1990). In recent years, there has been growing
Contemporary New Zealand society has shown criticism of this approach, arguing that
adaptation to a new style of Māori leadership. leadership is very much in the eye of the
Māori leadership positions are increasingly open beholder. Mendl (1995) argues that the follower,
to those with education, leadership skills, and
2not the leader or the researcher, defines the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire shows
leadership process. similar leadership behavioural characteristics in
Contemporary studies have more typically India, Singapore, The Netherlands, Japan,
taken a follower-centric approach that places China, Germany and Canada (Fiol, Harris, &
more weight on the images of leaders as House, 1999). This suggests that although each
constructed by followers (Popper & Druyan, cultural group is likely to attribute different
2001). These studies rely on implicit leadership characteristics to leadership behaviour, some
theory, which is based on followers’ beliefs behavioural characteristics, specifically those
about how leaders behave in general and the associated with transformational leadership are
behaviour they expect from leaders (Den likely to be universally endorsed as contributing
Hartog, 1999). These beliefs are formed by to outstanding leadership (Bass, 1998).
implicit memories, which are inflexible, long-
lasting memories based on each individual’s The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-
perceptual experiences of their environment 5X
(Lord & Maher, 1993). Individuals tend to
understand their own implicit memories as The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
knowledge rather than memory (Gardiner & (MLQ-5X), developed by Bass in 1985,
Java, 1993), and to group non-identical measures transformational and transactional
memories together to form implicit theories. leadership behaviour. Transactional leadership
These cognitive frameworks are used during is that which rewards or disciplines a follower,
information recall and processing to encode and depending on the adequacy of the follower’s
understand specific events and behaviour performance (Bass, 1998). The MLQ-5X
(Shaw, 1990). Implicit theories thus provide investigates relationships between these leader
perceptual blueprints of leadership behaviour styles and work unit effectiveness and
that define followers’ leadership expectations
satisfaction. It was developed in response to
and judgements (Rosch, 1978).
substantive criticism of its predecessor the
Lord and Maher (1993) claim that while
MLQ-5R (Bass & Avolio, 2000), and in a cross-
leadership perceptions may not be reality, they
are used to evaluate, and subsequently validation examination with nine samples, it has
distinguish, leaders from non-leaders. The better proved to have good construct validity. (For a
the fit between a perceived individual and the detailed account of validity testing of the MLQ-
leadership prototype, the more likely this person 5X, see Bass & Avolio, 2000.) In its most recent
will be seen as a leader. version, the MLQ-5X has been designed to test
There is evidence that implicit leadership a “full range” of leadership styles ranging from
theories can increase understanding of the charismatic to avoidant and laissez-faire (Bass
leadership processes of cultural groups (Mendl, & Avolio, 2000). The first four factors
1995). Gerstner and Day (1994) examined the (idealised influence, inspirational motivation,
perceptions of leadership of students from eight intellectual stimulation, individualised
different countries living in the United States of consideration) are identified as transformational
America. They found that the students from leadership factors, while contingent reward and
each country had a different conception of management by exception (active and passive)
leadership, with none of the five most typical are categorised as transactional leadership
characteristics of leaders in the United States factors. Laissez-faire leadership or an absence of
being ranked by the subjects. Other studies have leadership is included to embody the entire
found cross-cultural similarities in the study of range of leadership styles. The MLQ has been
transformational leadership – leadership which used in the study of leadership in different
goes beyond ordinary expectations, seeking to cultures in the international context (Yokochi,
arouse and satisfy higher needs, and engaging 1989; Koh, 1995; Den Hartog, 1997; Carless,
the full person of the follower (Blyde, 1997).
1998; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998).
For example, a study based on Bass’s (1985)
3Bass (1999) argued that transformational • Individualised Consideration. A leader
leadership generates greater follower who shows individual consideration
effectiveness and satisfaction than transactional treats each follower as an individual and
leadership, and Bass and Avolio (2000), found considers their individual needs, abilities
that the most effective leaders encompass some and aspirations. They help individuals to
transactional but more transformational develop their strong points and spend
characteristics. In support of this, Lowe, time training and guiding people.
Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam’s 1996 meta- • Contingent Reward. Contingent reward
analysis of 33 independent MLQ-based studies highlights a relationship between leaders
from America, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and followers that stresses exchange,
Singapore, and India concluded that there are with the leader facilitating the
strong positive correlations between all achievement of this process.
transformational leadership components and Reinforcement of this process is
objective and subjective performance measures. generally positive.
Transactional, contingent reward leadership was • Management by Exception. Active
less positively correlated with performance; and management by exception involves a
passive, management by exception leadership leader who actively monitors followers
was negatively correlated with performance. to safeguard against mistakes and takes
Numerous refinements and rigorous testing action when mistakes occur. Passive
have shown the MLQ-5X to be valid and management by exception involves a
reliable in many studies (Bass & Avolio, 2000). leader who only intervenes to take
A brief description of the full range of corrective action when things go wrong.
leadership dimensions measured by the MLQ- Reinforcement of this process is
5X is as follows: generally negative with the use of
• Idealised Influence (charisma). Leaders criticism and negative feedback.
with idealised influence become role • Laissez-faire. This is the avoidance or
models as followers identify with and absence of leadership where the leader
want to emulate them. These leaders are avoids getting involved altogether. No
admired, respected and trusted and are attempt is made at problem solving or at
perceived as having extraordinary motivating followers, and decisions are
capabilities, persistence and often delayed.
determination.
• Inspirational Motivation. Leaders who The New Zealand context
create inspirational motivation paint a
clear vision for the followers’ future To date, most of the leadership research
state and create the momentum to reach conducted in New Zealand has not taken into
that vision through the arousal of team account cultural differences within New Zealand
spirit. These leaders provide meaning, society. Parry (2000) conducted ‘The New
challenge, clearly communicated Zealand Leadership Survey’ which investigated
expectations, and a commitment to set leadership processes and profiled the future
goals. leaders of New Zealand organisations.
• Intellectual Stimulation. Leaders who Additionally, Kennedy (2000) produced a
exhibit intellectual stimulation discussion paper on leadership and culture in
encourage followers to be innovative New Zealand. These studies provided a
and creative by getting followers to comprehensive description of New Zealand’s
readdress old problems in new ways, dominant pattern of leadership, but disregarded
think outside the square and regularly the sub-cultures within New Zealand society.
examine old assumptions to see if they In recent years New Zealand has been
are still viable. included in some cross-cultural leadership
studies that use national borders as cultural
4boundaries. For example, in the GLOBE prototypes between the two largest sub-cultures
project, a study spanning 62 cultures, House and within New Zealand (Department of Statistics,
colleagues (1999) identified similarities and 1997). It was hypothesised that perceived
differences in leadership behaviour across nine leadership behaviour would vary as a function
cultural dimensions. They found some of cultural difference between Māori and
characteristics that were universally viewed as Pakeha New Zealanders.
contributing to effective leadership, and some As it is the first study of its kind on
that contributed to leadership in some cultures subcultures within New Zealand, this relatively
but impeded it in others. simple objective will begin to unearth a more
While these studies provide valuable insights holistic picture of the leadership behaviour in
into leadership in New Zealand as a whole, they this country. With its focus on cultural
fall short of considering potential differences difference, the study will begin to fill the gap
between groups within the broader cultural left by previous studies that have encompassed
context, and largely reflect the view of the New Zealand in their research sample, but have
dominant Pakeha culture and while overlooking not recognised the sub-cultures within its
potential differences that characterise leadership shores.
behaviour within New Zealand’s diverse A further objective of this study was to test a
cultural make-up. popular research method used in the study of
However, some studies have explored leadership within a collectivist culture. The
concepts of leadership within New Zealand’s literature shows a shortage of well-validated
subcultures. Ah Chong & Thomas (1997) methodologies for research into leadership in
conducted a within-country sub-cultural study collectivist cultures (Jung, Bass, & Sosik, 1995).
on Pakeha and Pacific Island New Zealanders. Therefore the selected methodology was chosen
They concluded that the leadership prototypes with the intention of exploring its potential fit
held by members of the two ethnic groups within this context. It is important to test the
appear to have culturally based differences. In a standard methodologies of leadership research
further study of the New Zealand workforce, to access their applicability in the context of the
Nedd and Marsh (1983) identified different increasing interest in cross-cultural leadership.
compliance-gaining strategies of first level
supervisors. These studies illustrate potential Methodology
differences in leadership between subcultures in
New Zealand. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Although some studies and discussions have (MLQ-5X) was used to measure perceived
provided qualitative descriptions of Māori leadership characteristics. This tool was chosen
leadership (Walker, 1993; Diamond, 2003; due to the breath of its use in leadership research
Henry, 1994), no studies to date have (Lowe et al., 1996) and its record of high
specifically quantified Māori perceptions of validity (Bass & Avolio, 2000), as discussed
leadership or produced a broader overview of earlier. Subjects were asked to respond to 45
Māori leadership characteristics. A detailed questionnaire items on a 5-point Likert scale.
study of the characteristics of New Zealand They were asked to rate how frequently each
leaders’ behaviour is important, as New statement fit the behaviour of the leader they
Zealand’s unique cultural makeup indicates that were describing. The scale ranged from 0,
it is likely there is a unique set of problems infrequent ‘Not at all’, to 4, frequently, if not
contributing to the quality of leadership (Parry, always’.
2000).
The aim of this study was to determine Sample
whether leadership characteristics of Māori and
Pakeha New Zealanders are rooted in their This study is based on a sample of New
broader cultural contexts. Specifically, it aimed Zealanders (N=37), from both Māori and
to identify differences in the leadership Pakeha cultures. The number of participants per
5cultural group is as follows: Pakeha (N = 19), and Dale Pfeifer sourced the remainder of the
Māori (N = 18). In obtaining this sample, the Pakeha sample. The questionnaires were
researcher enlisted the help of Matene Love, distributed by each of the researchers with due
Senior Lecturer in Māori Business at Victoria regard to the previously mentioned criteria.
University, and Jan Pfeifer, Public Health Matene Love distributed the questionnaire in
Promoter in the Southland region. This was both urban and rural localities in the lower
done with the intention of gaining access to a North Island of New Zealand to participants he
more representative sample of New Zealand’s encounters during his work as an academic,
population than the researcher would have had while Jan Pfeifer distributed the questionnaires
access to collecting the data alone. around rural Southland to participants she
comes in contact with in her work as a Public
Firstly, the researcher, in collaboration with Health Promoter. Fifty questionnaires were
Matene Love, decided on a predetermined set of originally distributed, Māori (N=25), and
criteria for selecting the participants in the Pakeha (N=25), with Māori (N=18), and Pakeha
study. The objective of this process was to gain (N=19), and a total of (N=37) questionnaires
as representative a sample as possible within the returned. Questionnaires were distributed by
constraints of this study. Paying attention to hand to each of the participants who were asked
these demographic features will potentially to return them by hand within two weeks. Those
reduce bias created by a less representative who did not return the questionnaire within this
sample and increase external validity of this time were given one verbal reminder to do so
study. The predetermined criteria were as within the next week. The questionnaires were
follows: a 50% gender split; age grouping then returned to the primary researcher by post.
(under 20, 20-25yrs, 25-30yrs, 30-40yrs, 40-
50yrs, 50-60yrs); the geographic location of the Data Analysis
participants rural (R=25%); or urban dwelling
(U=75%); and a judgement of whether the The score for each of the 45 items of the
participant was a leader (L=15%); or follower MLQ-5X was entered into two Excel
(F=85%). Two of these factors (rural/urban and spreadsheets, one for Māori and one for Pakeha
leadership status) are difficult to define and New Zealanders. These scores were then
therefore highly discretionary. These were totalled and the mean was calculated. The mean
classified according to judgments made by the scores were then divided into their appropriate
participants themselves for the former, and categories according to their MLQ-5X
based on occupational position (Pakeha) or classifications (idealised influence [attributed
hereditary position (Māori) for the latter. and behavioural], inspirational motivation,
However, this process involved some intellectual stimulation and individualised
guesswork, as only once the questionnaires were consideration). The average and standard
returned with completed demographic data was deviation of the scores from each category were
it revealed whether the predetermined criteria then calculated using free software available on
were realised. (For further analysis of the the Internet at
research sample, please refer to Table I in the http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/descriptive2
results section). .html. The variance was then calculated to test
for normal distribution of the two samples. This
Data Collection Methods was done using an F-test in the data analysis
function of Microsoft Excel. As the variances
The researcher sent the questionnaires to were unequal, a two-sample t-test using unequal
Matene Love and Jan Pfeifer who distributed variance was undertaken (using the t-test
them within the scope of their assigned criteria. function in Microsoft Excel) to gauge the
Matene Love sourced the urban and rural Māori similarity of the two sample means. This test
sample, Jan Pfeifer sourced the small sample of was chosen due to the continuous nature of the
the Pakeha population in rural New Zealand, data from two independent random samples. A
6comparative table was produced to facilitate legitimacy that characterise transformational
analysis of the research results. leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) and the
leadership process. Care and integrity have been
Research Ethics taken with research findings by making the
results of the research findings available only
During the course of this study, due attention through application to the researcher and the
was paid to ethical research conduct. Before MLQ organisation.
data collection began, the MLQ–5X was
submitted to Matene Love to check for cultural Results
sensitivity to issues surrounding Māori,
including language and protocols. Matene also The Research Sample
checked the questionnaire for continuity in Table I provides a summary of the known
frames of reference. In other words, the demographic features of the research sample.
comprehensibility and compatibility of norms These demographic features come under the
and values tested in the questionnaire were categories of ethnicity, age, sex, locality and
checked to ensure a match between the norms leadership position. As shown in this table the
and values of Māori and Pakeha society. ethnicity of the sample population was Māori
A cover sheet attached to each questionnaire (N=18) and Pakeha (N=19). The age of the
gained informed consent by clarifying the nature sample population skewed towards the younger
of the research and the responsibility of each of age categories rather that the older ones. (N=4)
the parties; guaranteed anonymity of all of the Māori sample came from rural areas of
participants; explained that participation was New Zealand, while (N=5) of the Pakeha
optional; and offered support by way of the population came from rural New Zealand. Only
researcher’s contact details to safeguard a small portion of the sample (N=3) Māori and
participants from harm caused by any issues that (N=3) Pakeha, can be considered leaders.
may have arisen due to the research.
The research findings must also be considered
with due regard to the power, influence and
7Table I. Demographic features of the population sample
Ethnicity Age Sex Rural/ urban Leadership
position
Māori < 20 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Female Rural No
Māori 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Male Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Female Urban No
Pakeha 20 - 25 Male Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Male Urban No
Pakeha 25 - 30 Male Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Male Urban No
Pakeha 25 - 30 Male Urban No
Māori 20 - 25 Male Urban No
Pakeha 25 - 30 Male Urban No
Māori 25 - 30 Male Urban Yes
Pakeha 25 - 30 Male Rural No
Māori 25 - 30 Male Urban No
Pakeha 25 - 30 Female Rural No
Māori 25 - 30 Female Urban No
Pakeha 25 - 30 Female Urban Yes
Māori 25 - 30 Female Urban No
Pakeha 30 - 40 Female Urban No
Māori 25 - 30 Female Urban No
Pakeha 30 - 40 Female Urban No
Māori 30 - 40 Male Urban Yes
Pakeha 30 - 40 Female Rural No
Māori 30 - 40 Male Urban No
Pakeha 30 - 40 Male Urban No
Māori 30 - 40 Female Rural No
Pakeha 40 - 50 Male Rural Yes
Māori 40 - 50 Male Rural Yes
Pakeha 40 - 50 Female Urban No
Māori 40 - 50 Female Urban Yes
Pakeha 50 - 60 Male Urban Yes
8The Research Results
individual consideration; contingent reward; and
Table II presents the results in scores (on a management by exception (active). Results were
five-point Likert scale) for both Māori and significant on three dimensions; influence
Pakeha New Zealanders with their (attributed), inspirational motivation, and
corresponding standard deviations and t-tests. intellectual simulation. The only exceptions to
As was hypothesised, cultural difference is the higher rating were management by
reflected in the assessment of leaders. Māori exception (passive) and laissez-faire or the
evaluated their leaders higher than their Pakeha absence of leadership, in which the situation
counterparts on most dimensions of leadership: was reversed and Pakeha were scored higher
idealised influence (behavioural and attributed); than Māori, although these results were not
inspirational motivation; intellectual simulation; significant.
Table II.
Difference between Māori and Pakeha New Zealanders on the MLQ factors (n=37)
Factor Cultural Average SD T
Group
Idealized Influence Maori 13.50 2.503
(attributed) Pakeha 10.79 3.706 2.592
Idealized Influence Maori 12.00 3.343
(behaviour) Pakeha 10.74 3.177 1.178
Inspirational Motivation Maori 13.28 2.164
Pakeha 11.47 2.736 2.216
Intellectual Stimulation Maori 11.72 2.321
Pakeha 9.63 3.270 2.231
Individualised Maori 12.39 2.524
Consideration Pakeha 10.89 3.264 1.551
Contingent Reward Maori 11.67 2.612
Pakeha 9.95 3.566 1.665
Management by Maori 9.56 2.995
exception (active) Pakeha 7.95 4.048 1.368
Management by Maori 5.72 2.630
exception (passive) Pakeha 6.11 3.740 -.0358
Laissez-faire Maori 4.83 2.526
Leadership Pakeha 5.00 4.243 -0.144
Discussion indicates that Māori scored higher than their
The results support the hypothesis that New Pakeha counterparts in seven out of nine
Zealanders’ perceptions of leadership behaviour leadership factors: idealised influence
are rooted in broader cultural contexts. This (attributed and behavioural); inspirational
suggests that two subcultures within New motivation; intellectual stimulation; contingent
Zealand, Māori and Pakeha, show some reward; and management by exception (active);
differences in leadership behaviour. A and significantly higher in three of those factors.
comparison of these two cultural groups Interesting, Māori scored significantly higher
9across three out of five dimensions of (collectivist) Māori New Zealanders perceive
transformational leadership. This gives tentative their leaders as more transformational than
evidence that Māori perceive their leaders as (individualistic) Pakeha New Zealanders
demonstrating more transformational leadership perceive their leaders to be. This is in line with
behaviours than Pakeha New Zealanders. previous research that suggests that
This result is in line with many other studies transformational leadership behaviour is more
on cross-cultural leadership that demonstrate likely to emerge in cultures exhibiting
that leadership behaviour differs between collectivist values, than in cultures exhibiting
cultures (House, et al, 1999; Brodbeck, 2000; individualistic values (Jung, Sosik, & Bass,
Lowe et al., 1996). For example, the GLOBE 1995). In support of this, Yokochi (1989)
project investigated the links between culture attributed the high level of intellectual
and leadership by examining the extent to which stimulation attributed to Japanese senior
leadership behaviour is universally endorsed or managers to the Japanese culture that values
culturally contingent (House, et. al., 1999). The lifelong, continuous learning and pursuit of
preliminary findings of the GLOBE project intellectual activities (cited in Bass, 1998). This
indicate that cultural difference strongly indicates that cultural difference could influence
influences the way followers perceive their the manifestation of transformational leadership
leaders as well as societal norms concerning behaviour.
status, influence, and privileges granted to However, some evidence suggests that the
leaders. differences found between perceptions of
The study of culture gives one explanation leaders are not necessarily differences in
for this difference in perceived leadership leadership behaviour but rather a reflection of
behaviour of Māori and Pakeha. Culture can be differences among followers themselves (Bass
described as a shared value structure that results & Steidlmeier, 1999). The difference in inherent
in decreased variability in individuals’ cultural values is reflected in the behaviour of
responses to stimuli (Erez & Early, 1993) and followers and could be the root of different
influences a group’s response to the perceptions of leadership attributes. For
environment (Hofstede, 1991). Cultural values example, in collectivist cultures charismatic
influence the perceptions of the people in each leadership (idealised influence) may be due to
culture, and are reflected in their behaviour cultural values that result in followers holding
(Gudykunst, 1997). Research has shown that an ordinary high level of respect, trust, loyalty
shared value systems differ over several and obedience to authority (Jung, Sosik, & Bass,
dimensions of culture (Hofestede, 1991). 1995). Additionally, inspirational motivation
Hofestede (1980), in his foundational work on may result from followers holding this high
worker-manager relationships, demonstrated level of respect, trust, loyalty, and obedience to
differences across the cultural dimensions of authority (idealised influence) in combination
collectivism versus individualism, power with the commitment to collective
distance, femininity versus masculinity, and accomplishment as characteristic of collectivist
uncertainty avoidance. A unique set of cultural cultures (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Therefore,
values is likely to influence the perceptions of it is possible that the transformational leadership
both Māori and Pakeha cultures (Hofstede, style of Māori leaders as perceived by their
1991: Mahuika, 1992). Māori follower-ship could be rooted in the
In line with this, the findings of this study values underpinning Māori culture. It is possible
may be a reflection of the difference in culture these values result in Māori follower-ship
of Māori and Pakeha New Zealanders. The behaviour that facilitates the transformational
differences in leadership behaviour as perceived leadership process, rather than the behavioural
by these two sub-cultures may be a characteristics of Māori leaders themselves, as
manifestation of the differing values indicated by the approach taken in this study.
underpinning each of the cultures. The results of
this study give tentative evidence that
10Future Research & Limitations distinct set of leadership behaviours is required
to lead diversity within its shores. The
The research method employed, the MLQ- identification of such a set could provide the
5X, produced some promising results and foundations for a model on which to base New
proved an adequate measure of leadership in the Zealand’s future leadership development. This
cross-cultural context in New Zealand. As model could offer evidence of how Māori might
interesting data was yielded for both secure leadership positions in business, or how
(collectivist) Māori and (individualistic) Pakeha Māori leadership characteristics might be
cultures, this lends support for the use of this understood advantageously in cross-cultural
research method when investigating leadership settings.
in collectivist cultures. However, in future Future research should take a more holistic
studies, complementary research with a specific approach and focus not just on perceptions of
focus on Māori follower perceptions or the leaders but on the characteristics of followers
context in which the leader-follower and the context in which the leader-follower
relationship is enacted might be important for relationship takes place. Research suggests that
exploring the particular dimensions of unique cultural characteristics may influence
leadership in a collectivist culture. leadership perceptions through the culturally
Additionally, due to the constraints of this contingent way in which leader/follower
study, the sample population was too small to relationships are structured and behaviours are
give an accurate representation of New interpreted (Chemers, 1997). Therefore future
Zealand’s population. The results are leadership research could consider the cultural
interesting, but are only indicative. However, variables surrounding the leadership
this study was intended as a pilot for a larger relationship, or the effect of leadership
project. The major study includes a much larger behaviour on followers such as motivation and
sample size and will allow wider reading, performance.
further testing of the hypothesis, and generation This study only focused on followers’
of more valid and reliable results. perceptions of leadership. It did not investigate
whether leadership behaviour stemmed from
Social Applications leaders themselves, resulted from followers’
behaviour, or arose from the cultural context in
The results tentatively suggest that the impact which the leader-follower relationship takes
of culture on leadership has practical place. Without due consideration of these
implications in New Zealand, particularly at a factors, caution must be taken in generalising
time when people are aware of growing the results of this study.
multiculturalism. As leading diversity becomes A further limitation of this study is the
increasingly significant, leaders need to become selection of the MLQ-5X as the instrument to
more aware of cultural difference and more measure Māori and Pakeha leadership. The
knowledgeable about other cultures and their MLQ-5X was developed in the United States of
nuances. The fit between a leader’s behaviour America. Therefore the scope and primary
and the leadership prototype of a follower have orientation of this tool is American, and it does
been shown to be critical in the successful not include all the aspects of leadership which
enactment of the leadership process (Gerstner & may be important in other cultures. For
Day, 1994; House et. al, 1999). Therefore, in a example, the MLQ-5X does not account for
cross-cultural setting, ethnocentric leadership some facets of Māori leadership which have
behaviour will hinder the leadership process been reported to influence leadership success.
(Hofstede, 1983). This includes family bloodlines, which have
Clear identification of subcultural leadership been reported to give leadership status to Māori
prototypes within New Zealand will lead to a as of right (Mahuika, 1992). To gain a richer
culturally unique ‘blueprint’ of leadership. New picture of perception of Māori leadership, a tool
Zealand’s unique cultural mix suggests that a
11needs to be developed specifically to address the leadership behaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 10
New Zealand context. (2), 181–217.
Blyde, P.N., (1997). A descriptive exploration of
Conclusions executive perceptions of leadership.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey
This study extends previous cross-cultural University, Palmerston North.
analyses by presenting tentative evidence that Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural
leadership concepts are culturally endorsed in social and organizational psychology. Annual
New Zealand. It shows differences in perceived Review Psychology. 47, 205–235.
leadership behaviour of Māori and Pakeha New Brodbeck, F. C., Frese M., Akerblom, S., Audia,
Zealanders. The results of this study can be G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D.,
helpful for the leadership practitioner by Bodur, M., Booth, S., Brenk, K., Castel, P., Den
providing some insights into the leadership Hartog, D., Donnelly-Cox, G.,. Gratchev, M. V.,
behaviour of two of New Zealand’s Holmberg, I., Jarmuz, S., Jesuino, J.C.,
predominant cultural groups. Although Māori Jorbenadse, R., Kabasakal, K. E., Keating, M.,
and Pakeha cultures share much, they are also Kipiani, G., Konrad, E., Koopman, P., Kurc, A.,
culturally distinct. The ability to build Leeds, C., Lindell, M., MacZynski, J., Martin,
conceptual bridges between cultures is G. S., O’Connell, J., Papalexandris, A.,
important in terms of gaining an understanding Papalexandris, N., Prieto, J. M., Rakitski, B.,
of the skills and application best needed to lead Reber, G., Sabadin, A., Schramm-Nielsen, J.,
culturally diverse populations. The suggestion Schultz, M., Sigfrids, C., Szabo, E., Thierry, H.,
of differing concepts of leadership also has Vondrysova, M., Weibler, R., Wilderom, C.,
implications for leadership in other multicultural Witkowski, S., & Wunderer, R. (2000). Cultural
settings, and for communication programmes in variation of leadership prototypes across 22
which the involvement or endorsement of European countries. Journal of Occupational
business or community leaders is sought. and Organizational Psychology, 73, 1–29.
Carless, S. A., (1998). Assessing the discriminant
References validity of transformational leader behaviour as
measured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
Adler, N. J. (1999). Global leadership: Women and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 353–
leaders. In W. H. Mobely (Ed.), Advances in 358.
global leadership (pp. 75–99). Stamford: JAI Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of
Press. leadership. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ah Chong, L., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Associates.
Leadership perceptions in the cross-cultural Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,
context: Pakeha and Pacific Islanders in New Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.
Zealand. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (3), 275–293. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
beyond expectations. New York: The Free attributes of charismatic/transformational
Press. leadership universally endorsed? Leadership
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook Quarterly, 10 (2), 219–239.
of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman,
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: P. L. (1997). Transactional verses
Industrial, military and educational impact. transformational leadership: an analysis of the
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MLQ. Journal of Occupational and
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19–34.
leadership questionnaire, 2nd edition, sampler Diamond, P. (2003). A fire in your belly: Māori
set. Binghamton: Center for Leadership Studies. leaders speak. Wellington: Huia.
Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, Dorfman, R. W. (1996). International and cross-
character, and authentic transformational cultural leadership. In B. J. Punnett & O.
12Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international collectivist cultures. Journal of Management
management research (pp.267–349). Inquiry, 2, 3–18.
Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Business. Kennedy, J. C. (2000). Leadership and culture in
Erez, M., & Earley, P. (1993). Cultures, self- New Zealand. Commerce Division, Lincoln
identity and work. New York: Oxford University , Lincoln, New Zealand
University Press. King, M. (1997). Nga iwi o te motu: 1000 years of
Fiol, C. M., Harris, D. & House, R. (1999). Māori history. Auckland: Reed.
Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for effecting King, M. (2001). Nga iwi o te motu: 1000 Years of
social change. Leadership Quarterly.10 (3), Māori history. (2nd ed ). Auckland: Reed.
449–482. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R.,
Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1993). Recognising (1995). The effects of transformational
and remembering. In A. F. Collins, S. E. leadership on teacher attitudes and student
Gathercole, M. A. Conway, P. E. Morris, (Eds.) performance in Singapore. Journal of
Theories of memory. New Jersey: Lawrence Organisational Behavior, 16, 319–333.
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross- and information processing. New York:
cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Routledge.
Leadership Quarterly, 5 (2), 121–134. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., K., &
Geyer, A .L .J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
Transformational leadership and objective correlates of transformational and transactional
performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
international review, 47, 397–420 literature. Leadership Quarterly, (7) 3, 385–425.
Gold, H., & Webster, A. (1990). New Zealand Mahuika, A. (1992). Leadership: Inherited and
values today. Palmerston North: Alpha achieved. In M. King, (Ed.), Te ao hurihuri:
Publications. Aspects of Māoritanga. Auckland: Reed
Gudykunst, W., & Kim, Y. (1997). Publishing.
Communicating with strangers: An approach to Mendl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as
intercultural communication. New York: a follower-centric theory; A social
McGraw Hill. constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly,
Henry, E. (1994). Rangatira women: Māori women 6 (3), 329–341.
managers and leadership. Unpublished Masters Nedd, A. N., & Marsh, N. R. (1983). Social
Thesis. University of Auckland, Auckland. traditionalism and supervisory style; An
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: empirical investigation of the relationships
Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. between social values and compliance gaining
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of strategies of supervisors. In N. R. Marsh, & W.
organizational practices and theories. Journal of F. McDonald (Eds.), The multi-cultural
International Business Studies, 14, p. 75–89. workforce in New Zealand and Australia.
Hofestede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequence: Auckland: University of Auckland.
International differences in work-related values. New Zealand Department of Statistics. (1997).
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. 1986 New Zealand census of population and
House, R. J. , Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. dwellings. Total population statistics.
A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson M. Wellington: Department of Statistics.
W., Gupta, V. et al. (1999). Cultural influences Parry, K. (2000). The New Zealand leadership
on leadership and organizations: Globe project. survey 1999. Wellington: Institute of Policy
In W. H. Mobely (Ed.), Advances in global Studies and the Centre of Leadership.
leadership (pp. 75–99). Stamford: JAI Press. Patterson, J. (1992). Exploring Māori values.
Jung, D. I., Sosik, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Bridging leadership and cultures: A theoretical Peterson, M. F., & Hunt, J. G. (1997). International
consideration of transformational leadership and perspectives on international leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 203-231.
13Popper, M., & Druyan, N. (2001). Cultural
prototypes? Or leaders’ behaviours? A study on
workers’ perceptions of leadership in an
electronics industry. Journal of Management
Psychology. 16 (7), 549–558.
Ra, M. (2000). Wahine ma Tapu a Io. Te
Kauwhata: Mataki Ra Publications.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In
E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and
categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Shaw, J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization
model for the study of intercultural
management. Academy of Management Review,
15 (4), 626–645.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompanaars, F. (1996).
National culture and the values of organisational
employees: A dimension of analysis across 43
nations. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
62, 97–109.
Spoonley, P. (1994). New Zealand society.
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Tapsell, S. (1997). Is Māori management different?
Management, 44 (9), 46–50.
Thomas, D. C. (2001). Leadership across cultures:
A New Zealand perspective. In K. W. Parry
(Ed.), Leadership in the antipodes (pp. 22–45).
Wellington: Wellington: Institute of Policy
Studies and the Centre of Leadership.
Willmot, B. (1989). Introduction: Culture and
national identity. In D. Novitz & B. Willmot
(Eds.), Culture and identity in New Zealand.
Wellington: Book Print Consultants.
Walker, R. (1989). Māori identity. In D. Novitz &
B. Willmot (Eds.), Culture and identity in New
Zealand. (pp. 35–52) Wellington: Book Print
Consultants.
Walker, R. (1993). Tradition and change in Māori
leadership. Auckland: Research Unit for Māori
Education, University of Auckland.
Whaiti, P. (1994). Rangatiratanga. Wellington:
Institute for Research and Development in
Māori Education.
Yokochi, B. N. (1989). Leadership styles of
Japanese business executives and managers:
Transformational and transactional.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, United States
International University. San Diego, C.A.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organisations. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
14You can also read
