Summary
Dickson et al. started the discussion on cross-cultural leadership with a review of related literature. They selected ideas and concepts that favored their intended message. At the same time, they discussed highlights regarding recent developments in cross-cultural research. They made the assertion that it was in the decade of the 1990s when serious research endeavors were completed (Dickson et al. 730).
After providing an overview of the said body of literature, the proponents of the study shifted their focus to significant advances in the context of cross-cultural research initiatives, specifically the appreciation of the said framework in the management of multinational corporations. In this regard, they wanted to focus the reader’s attention to the challenges that leaders face when managing a multinational corporation.
Dickson et al. pointed out that the difficulty stems from the need to balance the managerial requirements of both national and corporate cultures (731). Dickson et al. expounded on the nuances of the said subject matter by highlighting how research groups tried to refine and clarify not only the definition of culture, but also the dimensions of culture (732). They also tried to figure out its practical applications to the study of cultural variations in leadership.
The authors expressed the importance of acknowledging the existence of one of the largest research endeavors aimed at demystifying cross-cultural issues. As a result, a significant portion of the review process was devoted to the description of the mission and purpose of the GLOBE Project. The acronym stands for Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research. Data and insights gleaned from the project were considered valuable due to the process that was utilized to acquire the same. For example, project leaders are coordinating the efforts of at least 180 researchers (Dickson et al. 731). The project’s goal was to figure out the end-result of the interaction of different factors, such as, leadership skills, leadership style, societal culture and organizational culture (Dickson et al. 731).
After discussing the refinement in the definition of culture and after citing the proliferation of multi-investigator and multinational research initiatives, the authors acknowledged a higher level of sophistication as to how researchers think about the impact of universal findings. This statement summed up the three major developments in cross-cultural research.
The authors provided evidentiary support for the assertions made regarding the major developments in cross-cultural research. Thus, a significant portion of the discussion focused on the research endeavors completed beginning in the decade of the 1990s up to the present time. Special attention was accorded to a dimension-based approach. In addition, a major part of the review focused on the nature of universal relationships.
Furthermore, the review highlighted the crucial importance of the dimensions of societal culture in relation to leadership research. However, they went beyond Hofstede’s well-known 1980 study in order to include other dimensional frameworks, including those created by Schwartz and Trompenaars (Dickson et al. 732). The report also included the framework produced by the GLOBE Project.
A direct result of the refinement process was the explicit recognition of cross-cultural leadership as a valid and important field of study (Dickson et al. 736). Without a doubt, the surge in popularity was also brought about by the discussion of the practical applications of the said framework, such as, the interplay of country and company cultures.
The proponents of the study ended the review with a recap of the progress that was made in the last several years, and a conservative attempt to establish a prediction as to the future direction of cross cultural study initiatives. For example, the authors expected the continuous advancement and continuous refinement of the technologies and processes used to enhance people’s understanding about the significance and usage of the dimension-based framework of organizational and societal culture.
Discussing the Culture Dimensions
The societal culture and leadership dimension framework is comprised of the following elements: Power Distance; Uncertainty Avoidance; Collectivism; and Masculinity and related dimensions (Dickson et al. 737).
Power Distance or PD affects the type of leadership that influences and shapes a particular society. Employees or subordinates living in countries with a high PD index are more reluctant to challenge the decisions that were made by their respective supervisors, managers, and employers. Subordinates expect more guidance in countries with a high PD culture. In addition, they give importance to status and titles. Furthermore, it is less likely to develop a participative type of leadership in a society with a high PD score.
PD acknowledges the fact that power is distributed in an unequal manner. As a result, the separation between the different gradients of power is expressed through chains of commands and social layers characterized by exclusivity or inclusivity. The PD score is determined by the features found in an egalitarian society or a hierarchical type of society. Societies with a high PD index tend to produce a “directive” type of leadership (Dickson et al. 738). According to the GLOBE Project countries with a low PD score tend to create egalitarian societies. High scores in the PD category create non-egalitarian societies, such as those with Middle Eastern, East European, Confucian Asian, and Southeast Asian cultures (Dickson et al. 738).
Uncertainty Avoidance is the way to measure how people within a social group handle uncertainty or socially ambiguous situations. Societies with a high UA score demonstrate a higher degree of reliance on social norms and procedures (Dickson et al. 741). Thus, societies that exhibit this cultural trait struggle to create innovative solutions to oppress the problems. On the other hand societies with a low UA index are more innovative, and the people in these cultures are ready to take risks.
Collectivism is a cultural dimension that describes how people in social groups accomplish goals and self-actualization on the basis of autonomy or collective actions. Groups with a high collectivism index find success and meaning in life through the participation within a certain group and by identifying with the group’s goal or values. It is important to point out that a high level of socioeconomic development and democratization was observed in countries with a low score in this type of culture dimension. The reverse is true for those scoring high in this category. This assertion is based on the idea that the weakening of the “collectivism” mindset enables people to look beyond the needs and problems of their respective families.
Masculinity is a culture dimension that helps identify values related to assertiveness, toughness, financial power, passion for materialism and lack of concern for the welfare of others. This culture dimension is sometimes expressed as Masculinity versus Femininity in order to clarify the other end of the spectrum. As a result, societies exhibiting the reverse features of masculinity are called feminine cultures. People living within social groups with this description demonstrate warmer social relationships, concern for the poor and defenseless, and the pursuit for a quality life.
Refinement and Sophistication in Defining Culture in the UAE
Dickson et al.’s article did not provide any type of analysis or even insight into the cultural dimensions that affects the United Arab Emirates. Nothing was discussed in relation to UAE’s research initiatives geared towards the said subject matter. There was nothing that directly connects the UAE, except perhaps the revelation that people living in the Middle East are subjected to a directive type of leadership defined by high scores in PD, UA, collectivism and masculinity culture dimensions.
Although readers encountered a dearth of information regarding the UAE in Dickson et al.’s work, a review of related literature reveals an upward level in refinement and sophistication when it comes to the study of societal and organizational cultures within the country. For example, researchers from the University of Wollongong in Dubai made known the results of a study about leadership development programs with a special emphasis on a cross-cultural understanding of leadership and cultural variations in leadership (Kamali et al. 173). Sophistication and refinement in the definition of “culture” and dimensions of culture was the main attribute of the said study.
For example, the proponents of the said study were eager to find out how leadership was conceptualized in the said country. They were also interested to find out the context of the assertions that were made on behalf of the UAE. They also made the remarks that an out-of-context understanding usually resulted in creating a negative perception of Emirati leaders (Kamali et al. 175).
Culture of Leadership in the UAE
As mentioned earlier, Dickson et al.’s article did not provide crucial insights leading to the creation of a clear verdict regarding the type of leadership governing those that are working and living within the UAE. However, a generalization was made regarding countries that are located within the Middle East. Dickson et al. pointed out that the people in these countries favor a “directive” type of leadership as opposed to a participative type of leadership.
The said conclusion is in alignment with other research outcomes (Shi 93). This is also in alignment with countries that garnered high scores in PD, UA, collectivism and Masculinity culture dimensions. However, it is also important to appreciate and understand a more nuanced view of the culture that pervades UAE’s social groups. For example, Kamali et al. prescribed the need to look beyond the importance of leadership skills in order to consider the value of the leader’s mindset.
This nuanced view is the end-result of the realization that leadership is not only an outcome that is caused by the actions of a single leader. Leadership is perceived and appreciated as a phenomenon that accomplishes goals because of the interaction of two or more people. Thus, one can accept the conclusion that Dickson et al. made regarding this leadership culture. Nevertheless, it has to be refined using the experiences and wisdom of people living within the UAE.
For example, instead of focusing on the negative connotations ascribed to high-context cultures, it is prudent to look into the lives of people living in the UAE and discover that high scores in the aforementioned culture dimensions. Kamali et al. pointed out that those Emirati leaders developed a “particular adeptness with uncertainty, ambiguity and collaboration” (174). Thus, it is possible to see how Middle Eastern societies like the UAE are able to use the said culture dimensions and turn these around to create something good.
Recommendations
It is imperative to take a closer and more nuanced look at the research attempts and research initiatives that were made in behalf of the UAE. Research endeavors as exemplified by the unique research designs of Kalima et al. reminds people as to the importance of understanding the context of specific research findings. It is of crucial importance to reveal the fact that studies published in the United States and Europe are going to exhibit certain levels of bias against the appreciation and understanding of cross-cultural research in organizational and societal culture. As mentioned earlier, there is a negative connotation for countries with a high-culture context or those with high scores in terms of the PD, UA, collectivism, and Masculinity culture dimensions.
The absence of socioeconomic development, democratization, social welfare, justice, and progressive thought are the lamentable outcomes of adhering to a high culture context. Thus, there is an implied need to transform these cultures and model it after European examples. This advice is not only impractical but based on an ethnocentric worldview of a person’s own culture and social background. This is not an always accurate assumption of high context cultures and there is no other country that has a greater power to refute these assertions other than the UAE (Schilliro 228). One glance at the economic power and innovative prowess of the UAE is enough to warrant a deeper investigation into the importance of contextualizing pronouncements regarding sociocultural impacts on leadership (Shi et al. 93).
An overview as to how Emirati leaders transformed a barren land into one of the most advanced nations in the world requires a more nuanced analysis of the power of culture dimensions to affect the leadership style and effectiveness of leadership initiatives in the UAE (Al-Jenaibi 49). It is important to acquire this worldview because it helps explain the seemingly conflicting results in analyzing the sociocultural aspect of UAE’s economy and leadership environment. If one will follow the usual pronouncements from a biased view of the Middle East and similar cultures, it is easy to make the conclusion that the UAE is a poor country like North Korea or Indonesia, countries having the same scores as the UAE.
However, it does not require an economist to immediately see the difference. Thus, there is a need for another framework to explain the difference. One of the best insights that need a follow up was the one provided by Kamali et al., stating that it is not enough to focus on the skills set of the leader but also on the mindset of the leaders. Aside from a nuanced view, it is also practical to look into the impact of the Western-education experienced by key Emirati leaders (Ahmed 47). This phenomenon may help explain the contradiction in terms of having a high-context culture but also having leaders that think and operate like a person growing up in a low-context culture country. It may help explain how the UAE tries to balance between two worldviews and cultures.
Works Cited
Ahmed, Zain. “The Role of Diversification Strategies in the Economic Development for Oil Dependent Countries: The Case of the UAE.” International Journal of Business Development, vol,. 3, no. 1, 2015, pp. 47-56.
Al-Jenaibi, Badreya. “The Scope and Impact of Workplace Diversity in the United Arab Emirates.” Journal of Communication and Culture, vol. 1, no. 2, 2011, pp.49-81.
Dickson, Marcus. “Research on Leadership In a Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 1, 2003, pp. 729-738.
Kamali, Amira et al. “Leadership Development Programs: Investigating the Impact of Contextual and Cultural Factors on LDP Effectiveness in United Arab Emirates.” International Journal of Management, vol. 2, no. 4, 2015, pp.173-185.
Schilliro, Daniele. “Diversification and Development of the United Arab Emirates Economy.” Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 228-239.
Shi, Xiumei et al. “Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-cultural Research.” International Journal of Business Management, vol. 6, no. 5, 2011, pp. 93-99.