Introduction
Significant theoretical and scientific reasons exist for investigating societal culture’s influence on leadership and administrative practices. One such motivation is the rise in globalization trends among industries and augmented interdependencies among countries. Multinationals and worldwide links amplify the necessity for an enhanced understanding of cultural effects on leadership as never before. Equally, situations encountered by administrators and would-be leaders are multifaceted, constantly fluctuating, and hard to construe. Unlike any other time, managers belonging to international firms and state heads face vicious and speedily varying global antagonism. The drift towards the international monetary community is vibrant, making the 21st century the global era. The internationalization of industrial establishments presents plentiful leadership encounters, necessitating an understanding of factors influencing leaders’ behavior and performance. Investigations show clear variations among persons in power, with individuals from the same zones exhibiting related leadership traits. Therefore, cultural differences across global populations strongly impact people’s thoughts about leaders, leadership, and standards regarding the influence, prominence, and privileges approved by leaders.
Effective institutional and societal headship is acute to realizing of global operational processes. The cultural assortment of workers in multinational companies presents a considerable challenge relating to the development of transnational groups and their governance. As necessitated by globalization, cooperation between states remains substantially easier with a clear understanding of cultural variations among the groups and the values attached to the leadership facet. Culture is the way of life among unique collections and influences people’s ways. Some societies view leadership as a consensus-building aspect, while others expect their leaders to exhibit individualism based on culture (Pagda et al., 2021). Pagda et al. (2021) note that specific values, such as charismatic and value-based governance, are generally endorsed in many societies worldwide, implying the need for such facets for all human leaders. Other features perceived to be universal for leaders include being humane and participative (Da’as & Zibenberg, 2021). All other dimensions, including being autonomous and self-protective, vary by culture globally. Therefore, understanding different global communities’ cultures is a principle in appreciating variations in management styles across nations and organizations with leaders from different regions with unique cultural philosophies.
Culture and Its Various Dimensions
Cultural studies identify humans as dependent creatures with predetermined traits based on where one originates. The uniqueness relies mainly on culture, which Wallace et al. (2019) define as the intricate whole, including belief, knowledge, art, morals, custom, law, and all the aptitudes and routines developed by a human being as an affiliate of civilization or society. Despite the difference in people’s cultures, Masuda et al. (2020) provide basic dimensions available in each culture that can be used to recognize or relate societal ways of life. Power distance, uncertainty evasion, the association between individualism and collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity scopes are the four dimensions revealing cultures’ uniqueness, according to Wallace et al. (2019). Power distance designates the ranked command among people and the recognition of lopsidedly distributed authority (Wallace et al., 2019). For example, civilizations with extraordinary power distance have people characteristically assimilate themselves to classified structures that they recognize. However, such an aspect is never present in social settings without power distances, where people interact openly without caring about one’s social status or position.
Uncertainty evasion articulates the uneasiness of a society member when facing uncertain situations or unclear futures. Communities with high uncertainty avoidance mannerisms have individuals that avoid uncertain circumstances. The cautious lot often delays decisions or evades engagements without indistinct conclusions. Leaders from such societies equally despise aggressive deals and regularly make decisions based on proven benefits that their groups stand to gain by engaging in the plot (Wallace et al., 2019). Russians provide a community with high uncertainty avoidance, which impacts the nation’s interactions with other nations, especially the hard-to-trust partners, such as the U.S. (Masuda et al., 2020). On the other hand, cultures with low uncertainty evasion idiosyncrasy readily take risks. Wallace et al. (2019) provide Americans as individuals with low tendencies to evade uncertainties, leading to the nation’s aggression and the citizens’ outgoing nature. Accordingly, Americans managing multinationals often make them aggressive, frequently developing appropriate strategies to dominate the market, even when such involves walking un-walked paths. The feature juxtaposes Americans with other cautious cultures, necessitating the need to understand different nations’ values for a functional global village.
The individualism versus collectivism aspect epitomizes individuals’ propensity to perceive self-more or less as a portion of the entire societal framework. Societies favoring individualism have members who focus more on the self than the community (Masuda et al., 2020). Examples of such communities include some Arab states, where leaders exhibit unique prominence and privileges to the point of being worshiped by followers (Wallace et al., 2019). The leader in such settings makes decisions based on his or her feelings and rarely consults society members or seeks consensus. However, communities embracing collectivism generally have their leaders consider the public in vital processes, such as decision-making (Masuda et al., 2020). Leaders in such civilizations never seek personal gains, while subordinates or citizens have open access to the leader. Unlike the Dutch and Arabs, almost all the other cultures feature varying levels of individualism and collectivism. For instance, the oversized employee unions in the U.K. reveal the community’s collectivism preference, unlike the U.S., where individualism seemingly exceeds collectivism (Gutiérrez-Hernández & Abásolo-Alessón, 2021). Therefore, individualism versus collectivism offers a crucial facet for understanding various cultural groups of the world.
Lastly, the masculinity versus femininity dimension forms the last social measurement of cultural distinctiveness. The two aspects define the balance between the predilection for achievement, competition, material compensation for success (masculinity) and the preference for modesty, consensus, and cooperation (femininity) (Masuda et al., 2020). Competition, excessive focus on achievements, and gamification principles’ application for productivity promotion denote masculinity (Rattrie et al., 2019). America is thus a highly masculine society based on this definition. Americans generally esteem global dominance through innovations, economic power, and military muscles. The material reward for high productivity further defines American society, confirming the masculine nature. On the other hand, some nations cherish modesty, cooperation, and consensus. Japan is an example of such a civilization (Kuriyama, 2020). Citizens, political leaders, and organizations hardly do things to be recognized by the world. Instead, the culture normally leads people to do the right things modestly for the benefit of all. The matter explains Japan’s substantial exclusion from numerous global endeavors involving aggression. Accordingly, organizations with American and Japanese managers feature clear leadership differences due to cultural influences.
The Connection between Societal Culture and Leadership
The four cultural dimensions provide fundamental aspects necessary for comprehending distinct cultures and how they compare with others. Particularly, culture exhibits a significant impact on leaders’ administration styles and behaviors. Understanding an organizational leader or a country’s head substantially explains his or her actions and management practices (Pagda et al., 2021). Pagda et al. (2021) define a leader as a member of a specific group featuring greater influence on the cluster’s attitudes, decision-making, and performance relative to the regular participants in the group. Therefore, a leader’s centrality in a team affects their performance and survival. Changes in global trends and the increase in multinational establishments requiring diversity-conscious administrators thus necessitate the need to understand people and their cultures (Bucher, 2015). The following discussion covers a set of global administrators’ (political and organizational) governance styles as they handle internal and global issues of significance to their countries and companies. The work presents practical and verifiable facets regarding the selected leaders, justifying the central role of individual leaders’ societal philosophy on discrete managerial characters, behavior, interaction configurations, role interactions and follower perceptions.
The reflected leaders include Xi Jinping of China, Jean Qing Liu (President, Didi Chasing), Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Akio Toyoda (CEO, Toyota Motors). All these individuals demonstrate unique leadership traits and capabilities. Xi and Vladimir are political heads of states with significant influence internationally. The two lead their countries during the turbulent contemporary period and through sensitive issues. Vladimir and Xi’s unique performances and mannerisms significantly reflect their country’s general cultures, proving the contingent relationship between societal culture and national administration. Jean and Akio lead two successful multinationals operating in several states. The former is a female corporate leader in the patriarchal Chinese state, while Akio hails from Japan. Accordingly, culture plays a substantial role in the two individuals’ corporate governance, as revealed below.
Global Leaders Cultures and Leadership Styles
Xi Jinping
Xi is a significantly unique leader in Chinese history compared to his predecessors. The leader ascended to the presidency in 2012 after serving in several other political positions, including being a governor and the party’s general secretary and chairperson (Kautz, 2020). Xi took over Hu Jintao at a time when China and the world experienced real issues. For example, China’s economy struggled significantly during 2012 due to the previous 2008-2009 global economic crises and several other domestic factors, including excessive corruption (Thompson, 2020). China previously exhibited a passive global policy under Hu and the other presidents (Whyte, 2021). Accordingly, Xi transformed the initially passive China into the current global power. He is both celebrated and dreaded internationally and locally (Kautz, 2020). Being the son of a former national leader exposed Xi to numerous social aspects. For example, the present Chinese leader acquired a former Chinese education and specialized as a Chemical Engineer. The president then advanced his knowledge by learning Marxism (Whyte, 2021). Growing up in China exposed Xi to the fundamental Confucian value exhibited in his leadership to date.
China’s Culture
China’s unique culture sets its citizens significantly apart from global citizens. Hiller (2019) notes that the Chinese culture requires administrators to display effective headship by making themselves ethical models for their supporters. The official powers attached to the leader’s situation are not sufficient for operational leadership, according to Chinese cultural standards. Instead, power originates from character, assertions, and position in the societal or organizational ladder. Moreover, the Confucian thought governing Chinese people’s operations is paternalistic (Hiller, 2019. The philosophy embraces harmony, benevolence, and mutual respect while requiring public leaders to focus on walking the talk, even when such requires authoritarian acts (Hiller, 2019). Morality and being transformational are further necessary cultural requirements for social administrators based on Confucian precepts (Hiller, 2019). Leaders in the Chinese setting are anticipated to honor ethical deliberations above the realization of profit. The customary cultural standards influencing the Chinese people’s psyche include harmony, righteousness, wisdom, and courtesy. Furthermore, Confucian ethics embrace educating, facilitating, and developing people to attain excellence. These unique values, with effect to date, make China and Chinese leaders unique from the rest of the world.
Cultural Influence on XI Jinping’s Leadership
Xi is a real Confucian, based on his leadership principles and interactions with the global community. The fellow acts according to his culture, making him substantially unique. Confucian cultural prescriptions for harmony, order, and respect form Jinping’s governance principles. The president uses laws to control even the irritant internet and social media activities. The state-owned media corporation censors online activities to promote sanity and harmony in the nation. Jinping’s determination to realize the cultural values makes him unmoved by the uproar from the international community, proving the leader’s uncompromising compliance to the society’s culture (Whyte, 2021). The Belt and Road Initiative is Xi’s basic international policy based on the Confucian’s direction to help others. Applying fearless wisdom makes Xi a real global force, unlike his predecessors (Whyte, 2021). The current president interacts with the so-called global superpowers openly and even challenges rivals, such as the European states and the U.S. (Whyte, 2021). Jinping further maintains paternalistic operations to promote social obedience. Therefore, the Confucian culture informs Jinping’s leadership style and behavior substantially, proving the association between societal culture and individual administrative qualities.
Jean Qing Liu
Jean Liu is a true definition of contemporary corporate leadership. She is the president of DiDi Chuxing, a global ride-sharing mobile-based giant headquartered in China (Zhang, 2020). Liu is the daughter of a Chinese tech innovator and investor. Growing under a tech-involved family influenced Jean’s specialization in the IT sector. Growing up in the Chinese culture, Liu acquired basic Confucian cultural values, such as the essence of keeping quiet when in public and the value of dedicating life to the family. The Chinese culture equally informs Liu’s love for humanity and the importance of empathy in all dealings. Liu received basic Chinese education until college level before proceeding to the U.S. for a master’s degree in computer systems. Later, Liu joined Goldman Sachs as a junior analyst and grew to chief leadership positions in the top-rank investment bank. The Confucian culture learned in China armed Liu with sturdy work morals and a perfectionist outlook, just like in the case of Xi Jinping. Accordingly, sharing cultural dimensions makes Liu and Xi’s leadership traits substantially analogous, with the two administrators sharing perfectionism spirit and other fundamental Chinese values.
Studying and working in the U.S. alienated Jean Liu significantly, exposing her to new American ways. Zhang (2020) reports Liu’s struggles to fit into the U.S. financial organization during the first days of employment. For example, the source describes the Chinese female’s choice to maintain silence in organizational meetings featuring men. However, realizing that silence led to victimization in the foreign culture forced Jean to change, slowly changing from the typical Chinese woman into a contemporary American female leader. Successful leadership at Goldman Sachs exposed Liu to the corporate world, leading Wei Cheng, Didi’s CEO, to target the young lady with proven leadership skills (Zhang, 2020). However, joining Didi Chuxing transformed Liu into a fully alienated being, costing her even the basic family life and making her a single mother (Zhang, 2020). Liu currently heads the 700 million dollar firm dominating mobile-based transport company, serving as the Chinese market leader (Zhang, 2020, p.1). Equally, Didi is available worldwide, serving over 800 million customers and covering about 2 billion routes daily (Zhang, 2020, p.1). The company realizes significant success courtesy of Liu’s unique culture-based administration principles and traits.
The value and belief theory significantly defines Liu’s administration principles. Bucher (2015) argues that beliefs and values observed by members of specific cultures impact the point to which individuals, institutions, and groups’ performances are enacted. The values further determine the extent to which the leaders’ mannerisms are beheld as appropriate, satisfactory, and operational. Pagda et al. (2021) account on value and belief philosophy comprises the four scopes of social values and beliefs. The various dimensions include individualism vs collectivism, tolerance vs intolerance towards uncertainties, power stratification vs equalization, and masculinity vs femininity (Masuda et al., 2020). Growing up in different cultures exposed Liu to different social values, which she applies appropriately based on the prevailing circumstances. The Confucian cultural principles make Liu compassionate, respecting, goal-oriented, and perfectionist. Liu uses teamwork to develop a high-performance crew with unmatched potential. On the other hand, learning the American culture makes Liu fittingly aggressive in beating competitors even in markets away from home. Therefore, Jean expresses highly competitive (masculine) leadership traits due to her diverse cultural background, proving culture’s direct impact on people’s leadership.
Vladimir Putin
Russian Culture
Vladimir Putin’s unique leadership traits depict Russia’s distinctive cultural background. According to Sinkkonen (2021), the customary Russian governance style is tough and authoritative, as directed by the deeply rooted national mythology embracing vigorous and controlling leadership actions. Russia’s culture further supports high power disconnection and uncertainty evasion, giving rise to pyramid-shaped administrative edifices that are both centralized and formal (Akopov, 2021). Accordingly, Russian culture leaders adopt the transactional management panache traditionally displayed by Russian political frontrunners. Russians are comfortable with authoritative administrators who delegate diminutive power and consolidate power. The nation’s culture largely values age, protocol, and rank (Pisciotta, 2020). Russian managers, thus, naturally tend to be tyrannical and domineering. The administrators expect their subjects to follow traditional processes without interrogation, while juniors do not overtly dare their superiors, as such would make the manager lose respect and dignity (Langdon & Tismaneanu, 2020). Managers are further not contented with empowering workforces, whereas subordinates are generally relaxed about being dictated to as that is the culture. Russian leaders lose their temper, leave meetings, or portend to dismiss an affiliation to compel the other party to change position.
Putin’s Leadership Characteristics
Putin is a unique global leader using his distinct cultural background to govern Russians and handle international players. Individual views in governing situations, desire for control and influence, self-confidence, conceptual complexity, task orientation, and suspicion of the other entity’s intentions are critical of Putin’s culture-based leadership traits. These aspects make Putin a highly cautious reactive leader. Russia’s regime under Putin is personalistic, leading to weakened institutional strength and centralized political power. The Russian constitution’s Articles 80 and 85 backs power centralization as a cultural value (Langdon & Tismaneanu, 2020). The matter leads to the indenture with the public, where the president’s unconditional authority must be compensated with security for the safety and well-being of the Russian culture (Langdon & Tismaneanu, 2020). Accordingly, Putin believes in moderating the status quo for the whole community’s benefit. The leader’s mannerism is thus explainable using the integrated theory, which reiterates individual administrators’ acquisition of unique behaviors and processes in compliance with culture. Certainly, Putin would operate otherwise if he came from another society, thus revealing culture’s central role in leadership traits among global leaders.
Putin’s Interaction with China and the U.S.
Putin’s commitment is to help Russia regain socioeconomic potential and the lost global competitiveness. The leader’s focus is to partner with strategic allies who can help the state mutually attain its objectives. Putin expects that countries participating in alliance formation will maintain the values of openness, consideration, and equality in fostering the respective nations’ interests. Accordingly, Putin comprehends exactly which suite can benefit Russia due to his wisdom. For example, Putin sees China’s foreign policy as substantially helpful to the two nations, leading him to accept the Asian economic giant’s proposal to work together in developmental platforms, such as BRICS (Stent, 2019). Yang and Rozanov (2022) maintain that Putin understands China’s swallowing motif through the OBOR strategy but knows how to handle such when openness is no longer available. Therefore, Russia works with China in a significantly relaxed manner due to Putin’s belief in the ability to control situations, even if such means terminating the deal to protect the Russian culture. Therefore, Putin’s mannerism complies with the Russian culture’s assertion that effective leadership involves a strong and controlling administrator who can maintain a consolidated power scheme.
Akio Toyoda
Akio Toyoda is the CEO of Toyota Motors, the global automotive market leader based in Japan. Toyoda is credited with the company’s comeback after the 2010s management crises leading to massive vehicle callbacks and a decline in consumer trust (Liker, 2021). Akio’s success is based on the leader’s application of cultural values, such as the establishment of polycentric structures. Kuriyama (2020) notes that effective leadership in Japan largely values consensus-building, where powers are shared, and governors appear as accord oriented. The Japanese culture favors resilient collectivism, sturdy authority, and harmony, which Toyota’s past administration erroneously violated by seeking costly and unreliable automotive technology. Akio matches Japan’s low Individualism dimension, thus his success (Liker, 2021). The leader further has a highly robust harmony sense, conflict evasion, and unanimity-oriented decision-making principles typical to the Japanese culture.
Other than focusing on developing high-tech, costly cars, Akio uses his enthusiasm to influence the Toyota team to simply deliver the basics, which helps the firm to regain market dominance. Toyoda is further charismatic, matching the culture’s demand for attractiveness that inspires devotion among followers. According to the culture, Toyoda features a strongly connected radical vision for Toyota, leading to complete workforce integration and strong team development. The culture equally values transformational leadership, which charms followers’ moral values and transforms the inner structure for outstanding performances. Thus, Akio’s effective leadership comes from the fellow’s appreciation of Japan’s culture, proving that societal culture has a direct effect on leadership.
Conclusion
The present discussion reveals societal culture’s fitness in the models of individual managerial traits, leaders’ interaction patterns, leader behavior, and role relationships, among other aspects. The work starts by defining culture, cultural dimensions, and leadership. Then the discussion provides real examples of global leaders, both political and organizational, whose administration styles comply with basic cultural values. Accordingly, the present work reiterates the essence of understanding specific leaders’ cultures to comprehend their behaviors. Equally, the discussion reinstates the need for global citizens to research and understand foreign states or multinationals’ home cultures to fit into the entities.
References
Akopov, S. (2021). Ideological concepts in ‘formalism, decisionism and conservatism in Russian Law’ (2021) by Mikhail Antonov. Review of Central and East European Law, 46(3-4), 447-464. Web.
Bucher, R. D. (2015). Diversity consciousness: Opening our minds to people cultures and opportunities (4th Ed.). Pearson.
Da’as, R. A., & Zibenberg, A. (2021). Conflict, control and culture: Implications for implicit followership and leadership theories. Educational Review, 73(2), 194-208. Web.
Gutiérrez-Hernández, P., & Abásolo-Alessón, I. (2021). The health care sector in the economies of the European Union: an overview using an input–output framework. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 19(1), 1-22. Web.
Hiller, N. J., Sin, H. P., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as weirdly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184. Web.
Kautz, C. (2020). Power struggle or strengthening the party: Perspectives on xi Jinping’s anticorruption campaign. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 25(3), 501-511. Web.
Kuriyama, N. (2020). The Japanese perspective on responsible management. Research Handbook of Responsible Management, 2(1), 318-331. Web.
Langdon, K. C. & Tismaneanu, V. (2020). Putin’s totalitarian democracy: Ideology myth and violence in the twenty-first century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Liker, J. K. (2021). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer (2nd Ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Masuda, T., Ito, K., Lee, J., Suzuki, S., Yasuda, Y., & Akutsu, S. (2020). Culture and business: How can cultural psychologists contribute to research on behaviors in the marketplace and workplace?Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1304. Web.
Pagda, Z., Bayraktar, S., & Jimenez, A. (2021). Exploring culture and leadership after 23 years: A replication of GLOBE project in Turkey. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100822. Web.
Pisciotta, B. (2020). Russian revisionism in the Putin era: an overview of post-communist military interventions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria. Italian Political Science Review, 50(1), 87-106. Web.
Rattrie, L. T., Kittler, M. G., & Paul, K. I. (2020). Culture, burnout, and engagement: A meta‐analysis on national cultural values as moderators in JD‐R theory. Applied Psychology, 69(1), 176-220. Web.
Sinkkonen, E. (2021). Dynamic dictators: improving the research agenda on autocratization and authoritarian resilience. Democratization, 28(6), 1172-1190. Web.
Stent, A. (2019). Russia and Eurasia. Survival, 61(4), 170–176. Web.
Thompson, D. (2020). The Rise of Xi Jinping and China’s New Era: Implications for the United States and Taiwan. Issues & Studies, 56(01), 2040004. Web.
Wallace, C., Vandevijvere, S., Lee, A., Jaacks, L. M., Schachner, M., & Swinburn, B. (2019). Dimensions of national culture associated with different trajectories of male and female mean body mass index in countries over 25 years. Obesity Reviews, 20, 20-29. Web.
Whyte, M. K. (2021). China’s economic development history and Xi Jinping’s “China dream:” an overview with personal reflections. Chinese Sociological Review, 53(2), 115-134. Web.
Yang, Y., & Rozanov, A. (2022). Russia-China cooperation: Trends and perspectives. Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, Web.
Zhang, M. (2020). Jean Liu – A Road Less Traveled. ISSUU. Web.