The relationship between leadership and national culture is an area of interest that has engrossed substantial attention from both the scholars and those in practice. A considerable amount of concern is founded on unambiguous and implied assertions that the correlation amid styles of leadership and national culture significantly affects organizational performance. Nevertheless, while the relationship between the organization’s performance and leadership, as well as the culture and performance, have been explored, few types of research have been done in the field of how national culture influences leadership and the organization’s performance. The paper will be exploring the relationship between these concepts. The paper will also provide pragmatic evidence suggesting that the relationship between leadership and the organization’s performance is influenced by national culture.
Further, the study offers general concerning the relationship between these concepts. As suggested, there is pragmatic evidence indicating that the relationship between leadership and the organization’s performance is influenced by national culture. The academic literature is applied to build the theories, which will be tested to examine the relationship between these concepts. The conclusion drawn from the study is that there is a correlation between national culture, leadership, and organization performance.
The theoretical objective of this study is to examine the correlation between organizational performance and leadership style. Also, the study will theoretically determine the impact of national culture on the performance of an organization. Further, the theoretical study will ascertain the impact of national culture on organizational leadership style
On the other hand, the empirical objective in this study will be applied in the relationship between these concepts model on the selected country organizations group. Further, the results from the study will be used to find out what leadership style is influenced by the national culture, which in turn affects organizational performance. Moreover, the results will be applied to find out if there is any difference in the theoretical approach and practice among these concepts.
The relationship between leadership and national culture is an area of interest that has engrossed substantial attention from both the scholars and those in practice. A considerable amount of interest is founded on explicit and implicit claims that the relationship between national culture and leadership influences performance, particularly organizations that operate within the nation (Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008). Nevertheless, while the relationship between the organization’s performance and leadership, as well as the culture and performance, have been explored, few research works have been done in the field of how national culture influences leadership and the organization’s performance.
Yilmaz and Ergun (2008) argue that national culture and leadership are linked to the organizational performance independently. In other words, studies have been conducted independently on the connection between national culture and performance. Conversely, other scholars have conducted a study on the relationship between the organization’s performance and leadership. However, how the national culture influences leadership and organization performance remains unstudied.
According to Bradley and Byrne (2007), the function of leaders in constructing and upholding a particular nature of culture, whether national or organizational. Bradley and Byrne (2007) further argue that organizational culture stems from the national culture. Equally, Schein (1992) alluded to the fact that the ability of leaders to comprehend and perform their duties inside custom is a precondition to management efficacy. National culture is hardly an essential variable having impacts on the organizational leadership styles and performance. National culture is alleged to significantly influence study parameters, including various kinds of managerial divisions, customs, as well as the anticipations of the subordinates (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Also, national culture considerably influences the organization’s standards, namely performance and the main managerial deductions than other demographic features. Moreover, national culture affects performance and leadership in any organization more than it affects occupation, gender, and edification levels (Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008).
Despite the explicit and implicit relationship between leadership and national culture in most of the organization theory as that advanced by Xenikou and Simosi (2006), few studies have delved deeper to appreciate this relationship. Xenikou and Simosi (2006) dedicated their study on the relations between the concepts, and the effect of such a relationship might have on the performance of the organization. The absences of such studies are surprising, given the fact that there are many references to the importance of the national culture in organization management (Bradley & Byrne, 2007).
Xenikou and Furnham’s (1996) study intended to offer practical substantiation on the correlations amid national culture, various styles of leadership, and organizational performance. The aim will be attained through the production of analyzed data outcomes of a cross-sectional investigation of management style, countrywide culture, and executive performance within the UK firms. The paper starts by looking at the literature on the national culture, leadership styles, and organizational performance. The study then discusses the research design, the research findings are critically analyzed, and recommendations offered based on the analyzed data assessing the correlations amid study parameters. From the study, there is clear evidence that the national culture influences leadership styles in an organization and the organization’s performance. Therefore, it can be concluded that national culture plays a critical role in shaping leadership styles within the organization, which in turn determines the organization’s performance.
Organizational performance and leadership styles are perceived to be broad study areas that need thorough investigation. The literature on leadership style and national culture appear to be autonomously correlated to organizational performance. For instance, studies by Howell and Avolio (1993) investigated the correlations amid performance and leadership styles while Kottler and Heskett (1992), together with Denison (1990), examined the relationship between performance and national culture. Besides, various study literature on the aspects of national culture refers to the roles that organization leadership play towards maintaining and creating certain kinds of culture in an organization (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Other study literature on leadership styles suggested that the capacity to work in a given culture and understand it has proved to be a precondition to the success of leaders (Hennessey, 1998).
Nevertheless, irrespective of the explicit and implicit correlations between culture and leadership in various organizational theories, very few research studies have critically dedicated their interest towards comprehending the relationship amid these conceptions as well as the effect these correlations may have on the performance and leadership styles of an organization. Thus, the lack of significant study literature that explores the performance inference of the correlation amid leadership styles and national culture tends to surprise owing to the various references to the significance of these conceptions in organizational performance.
The study to test the following two study hypotheses:
Ha: National culture has a positive or negative impact on organizational performance and leadership styles
Ho: National culture has no impact on organizational performance and leadership styles
This research study aims at providing empirical data on the correlation amid organizational performance, various leadership styles, and national culture. However, the following objectives will guide the researcher to respond to the study questions:
- To investigate the correlation between organizational performance and leadership style
- To determine the impact of national culture on the performance of an organization
- To ascertain the impact of national culture on organizational leadership style
To investigate the impact of national culture on organizational performance and leadership styles, this particular research study will utterly be quantitative research. The requisite research data will be gathered across the study population through sampling strategy. A research technique dubbed as the survey method will essentially be drawn on, while descriptive statistics will be applied to help analyze the obtained data. By employing these research methods, any ensuing unanticipated research hypothesis will possibly be suggested as well as formulated, and the study will be much quicker and somewhat cheap. These research methods are sequentially considered to be amongst the best given that they rarely stand a chance of disqualifying any notable alternative explanations because they surmise to the event causations.
Besides, while investigating the impact of national culture on organizational performance and leadership styles, a descriptive quantitative study method is considered suitable for this particular research. This research method will assist in assessing the value of the model presented in diagram one above. As a result, the researcher intends to conduct the research study using a single organization whereby data will be gathered using a sample size of one hundred units from a particular Romanian company that is registered in the FAME database. The appropriate large or medium-sized corporation will be chosen through organized random collection processes. In contrast, suitable study units will be chosen based on multiplicity criteria such as several workforces, date of registration, and the corporation turnover.
To minimize the possible study measurement errors, the research response and data will be acquired from the key company informants with knowledge in various strategic and tactical activities (Nayyar, 1992; Campbell & Freeman, 1991). Whereas studies conducted by scholars such as Bowman and Ambrosini (1997) indicate that it is unreliable to draw conclusions based on a single study respondent, Zahra and Covin (1993) in their studies argue that the concern is hardly a setback in other study contexts. On the other hand, Malhotra (1993), Campbell and Freeman (1991) as well as Slater (1995) noted in their studies that multiple research respondents have negative impacts on the study results, including poor inter-rater consistency problems, difficulties in administering the survey, and usable response rate. Thus, the researcher will utilize the solitary respondent strategy whereby only a senior manager will be chosen as a key informer per sample unit.
The researcher will administer a well-designed and tested study questionnaire to the respondents during the survey to generate first-hand research data. For the survey execution and design to be both effective and resourceful, the researcher will use follow-up mailings, response incentives, and offer pre-notification protocol advice to the study respondents (Paxson, 1992). A surfeit of prescriptive manuscripts and scholarly articles has proffered resourceful suggestions on the strategy. The implementation and administration of the research instruments following these strategies will influence the general realization of the satisfactory responses and the successful generation of research data (Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). However, to improve on the response rate and content validity, the study survey will have to be planned, devised, and executed in a way that follows directly the recommendations offered by various researchers. For instance, the recommendations offered by Churchill (1991) on the post-survey follow up reminders, pre-notification, survey piloting, as well as the questionnaire layout and design, will be adopted.
Developing the research questionnaire is one of the key aspects of the study methodology, given that the instrument is intended to serve its intended purposes. The instrument will follow the nine steps iterative guideline or framework proposed by Churchill (1991) to improve the content validity. The framework was initially proposed and developed by the renowned scholars, Bowman and Ambrosini (1997), and it ensures that the systematic processes in formulating the research questionnaire are meticulous. By appraising the accessible procedures, operations, and suppositions, it emerges that the dimension of managerial performance, leadership styles, and national culture can be constantly realized through approving the measures adapted from the present study prose.
Various theorists, including Xenikou and Furnham (1996), along with Cooke and Rousseau (1988), who studied the concept of national culture, have proffered scores of cultural measurements. In fact, according to Xenikou and Furnham (1996), appraisal of such measurements show that all the developed national culture measures reflect the view of the originator, including a sequence of values and opinions together with the national culture definitions. Therefore, in cases where the philosophers offered definitions of national culture to be comprised of sequences of standards, the cultural measurements will concentrate on such standards. However, Harris and Ogbonna (2000) claim that whenever the national culture description concentrates on specific artifacts, then such definitions bring about the measurements focusing on the creation of organizations. Nevertheless, the views of Schwartz (1992) revealed that the pre-study deliberations on culture conducted using the organizations’ administrations appeared to be in line with practitioners’ opinions. In contrast, such cultural views seem to be concordant with the existing premises.
The national cultural measurement that was custom-made from the work of Schwartz (1992) was broadly derived from Darcy and Kleiner (1991) as well as Campbell and Freeman’s (1991) initial works on the subject under discussion. These measurements are believed to be tentatively greater than any other variable measurement based on the fact that the set focuses on measuring two major national culture continua. For instance, the measurement for national culture will concentrate on the internal-maintenance-external and organic-mechanistic positioning. This cultural dimension aspect is alleged to be respondent affable, trouble-free to oversee, and concise (Campbell & Freeman, 1991).
As a result, in the survey instrument, also known as the research questionnaire, the battery measures proposed by Darcy and Kleiner (1991) will be espoused and drawn on in this particular study both for conceptual as well as practical reasons. Nonetheless, Darcy and Kleiner (1991) used cultural labels that will be altered in this study. Thus, in this research, the national culture will be measured using organizational values and management opinions. The accurate quantity of investigation objects and words of the exploration queries that are intended to gauge national culture are obtainable in the survey instrument available in the appendix.
Most scholars, including Campbell and Freeman (1991), together with Xenikou and Furnham (1996), admitted that organizational performance materializes as a highly multifaceted and multi-dimensional phenomenon. Whereas scores of researches tend to measure organizational and employees performances as either bi-dimensional or uni-dimensional parameter, the recommendations and proposals contributed by Darcy and Kleiner (1991) alongside Churchill (1991) made the researcher to decide to measure the magnitude of organizational performance based on the reflected competitor centered and client focus perspectives. That is, the researcher will adopt the performance measurement dimensions, namely, competitor centered and customer-focused viewpoints.
Besides, the quantification of the performances of any corporation was formed through an assortment of explorations that the investigator customized from the foregoing writers’ transcripts and put-ups. To assess organizational performance, the standard study subjects will consist of trade quantities, competitive benefits, marketplace dominance, trade expansion, and client approval. These performance measurement parameters were gauged through the analysis of both the short term as well as long term organizational performance variables based on two broad questions set off through the above named five study parameters (Bowsers & Seashore, 1966).
The measurement of the alleged styles of leadership will similarly originate from various existing and approved study literature. Via assessing the investigative prose that correlates to the evaluation of the distinctiveness, techniques, as well as conducts of managerial headship, Churchill (1991) advocated that investigators ought to draw on apt outsized measurement quantity. For instance, the perceived strategies for measuring the styles of leadership that were drawn on by Darcy and Kleiner (1991) that were sequentially derived from the Stogdill (1963) and Fleishman’s (1957) initial works appeared to be valid and reliable according to most scholars. Some of the scholars who acknowledge these leadership measurement styles in their texts and study literature included Paxson (1992) and Nicholls (1988).
Whereas most previous researches, including Mullins (1999), drew on the 5-point degree in gauging the alleged styles of organizational leadership, Hartog et al. (1999) argued that switching from the 5-point degree to the 7-points degree hardly have any impact on the key analysis factors. However, this normally assists in improving the validity as well as the reliability of the research results. Accordingly, the researcher intends to approve the generally employed 7-points degree Likert scale scores for each variable in the questionnaire given that using the 7-points degree could aid in the improvement of response rates (Malhotra, 1993) as well as the research validity and reliability (Churchill, 1991). The quantity of exploration objects and the defined investigation queries lexis that appraises the technique of managerial headship are accessible in the study instrument available in the appendix.
The researcher intends to conduct a follow-up study survey to remind the respondents about the importance and urgency of their responses. In this particular study, all the respondents are deemed viable when carrying out the research. However, the target group will be selected depending on the frequency with which they have knowledge of the variables. From the total number of the target population that may be sampled, just thirty respondents will be selected via a technique dubbed as a convenience simple random sampling strategy, and the research questionnaire will be administered to help in addressing the formulated research questions. For the study, the proposed sample size will comprise of sixty-five percent men and 35 percent women. The respondents will be categorized according to their age group between the age of 21-30, respondents from the age of 31-40, and respondents between the age of 41-50 as well as from 50 and above. Additionally, the sampled respondents will be categorized according to their educational levels. All the respondents’ types will be interviewed to help obtain the study of qualitative data.
Due to time and cost constraints, random sampling will be used to select the required respondents. Although random sampling is a quick and convenient method for selecting the participants, the researcher is free to select the participants who are accessible and convenient though not necessarily representative.
Given the nature of the research study to be conducted, the path analysis technique will be used during data analysis. However, to ensure logical completeness as well as response consistency, the researcher will edit the acquired data each day to be able to identify the ensuing data gaps or any mistakes that need instant rectification. When data editing is completed, the collected research information will be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative data will be analyzed using logical analysis and content analysis techniques. Regression analysis will be conducted to determine the relationship between the factors being investigated, namely national culture, leadership styles, and organizational performance. Other quantitative data analysis techniques will include percentages, and frequency distribution, which will determine the respondents’ proportions that choose a variety of responses. This will ideally be done for every group of items that corresponds to the research objectives and questions. The method will be applied for each group of items available in the questionnaire that ideally corresponds to the formulated research question and objectives. Line graphs, tables, as well as statistical bar charts will be used to make sure that quantitative data analysis is simply understandable.
A review of the study literature
According to the existing study literature, national culture is hardly an essential variable having impacts on the organizational leadership styles and performance. National culture is alleged to significantly influence study parameters, including various kinds of managerial divisions, customs, as well as the anticipations of the subordinates. The studies by Howell and Avolio (1993), Kennedy, and Anderson (2002) specified that national culture considerably influences the organization’s standards, namely performance and the main managerial deductions than other demographic features. The literature reveals that national culture affects performance and leadership in any organization more than it affects occupation, gender, and edification levels. According to Byrne and Bradley (2007), experiential research outcomes, ideals relating to national culture make up roughly seventy points zero percent of the total impacts of negotiation on the kind of managerial headship and corporations’ performance. When conversed in common terms, culture materializes in three-known categories, namely nationalized, cluster, and managerial cultures. However, national culture shapes organization and group cultures, thus influencing the styles of leadership and performance in a given organization (Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008).
Different philosophies of leadership might result from diverse national cultural groups. In other national cultures, groups would observe somebody as a principal immediately that person takes inflexible and decisive verdicts even if, further nationwide, cultures simply call for shared and advice-giving guidance schemes. According to (Hartog et al., 1999), the denotation and appraisal of headship styles and performance of different directors fluctuate a lot of athwart divergent nationwide cultures. There are chances of frail leadership sensitivity in a national culture that recommends an authoritarian style of leadership. In contrast, similar sensitivity ascertains the importance of leadership affectivity and performance in national cultures that endorse the nurturing leadership style. Therefore, particular nations tend to improve their respective organizational styles of management, basing their knowledge on the fact that national culture relates to and affects various life aspects (Kennedy & Anderson, 2002).
On the other hand, several global firms rely on worldwide associations that are dependent on the adaptability and flexibility of local marketplaces. These firms need their leaders to obtain suitable styles of leadership to address efficiently varied national cultures and systems that determine the improved organizational performance (Fahy, 2002). As globalization transpires and local markets become internationalized, newfangled challenges face organizational leaders. Hence, based on Fahy’s (2002) study findings, such organization leaders are more likely to work and live with natives’ from different cultural backgrounds and origins who bring with them a mixed lifestyle, decrees, and lingoes.
Thus, proper management of national culture shock is one of the main capabilities for interpersonal leadership rapport, implementation significance, and expatriates as it boosts the level of organizational performance, as argued by Kennedy and Anderson (2002). Moreover, it might be indispensable if organizational managers relentlessly comprehend the activities of home administrators and re-evaluate their management techniques to handle diverse groups and develop their productivity capacities at the intercontinental front. Usually, the outfitted headship approach remains amongst the paramount and critical aspects in sustaining the managerial output and preserving the corporation’s competitive merit in case the institutional managers experience globalization setbacks.
To pinpoint the differences in national culture, several researchers have endeavored to classify national culture to assist in understanding the differences amongst states. The Hall (1976) high and low outline of national cultural context is the simple model for comprehending the dissimilarities amid national cultures and their impacts on leadership styles and organizational performance. Hall (1976) asserts that to understand the situation and people in a low context culture, the organizational leaders must explicitly emphasize written and spoken messages. On the contrary, to determine the conduct in the elevated framework nationwide culture, the specific managerial memo is transmitted via personality class and job designation, profound customs, intonation, and mysterious body stance. All these attributes significantly affect organizational performance.
Schwartz (1992) proffered a condition to ascertain the nationwide culture that might develop managerial output and headship style by reassessing the suggestion of the existing model in the composition and implication of ideas. The scholar anticipated that unusual forte in the common sets of intellectual and entity ideals are replicated in the techniques of headship. Also, the dual bi-glacial proportions of nationwide culture labeled the categories of cultural ideals as character-transcendence against character- enrichment as well as candidness to transformation against preservation. Schwartz (1992), while concluding, saw that via setting the national dimensions of culture, different organizational associates are inclined to adopt designated personal dimensions for performance improvement.
The study conducted by Hofstede (1984) on the impact of national culture on organizational performance and leadership style is considered supreme and extensive cross-national scrutiny of cultural values in the context of management. Hofstede (1984) established numerous scales naming them national culture dimensions. These included (LTO) the long-term orientation, (MAS) masculinity, (IDV) independence, (AIA) ambiguity averting, and (AD) authority distance. A blend of these proportions proffers all single nationwide culture their inimitability in facet and rareness to impact headship styles and managerial output as projected by the investigator. Thus, nearly all investigative studies on culture denote the extent to which the control of nationwide culture impacts headship techniques, activities, conceptions in addition to managerial productivity.
However, the clear-cut in the form and nature of interaction and impact amid these three ideas are not wholly understood. Some novelists put forward that culture and leadership are correlated, definite kinds of national culture are related to superior performance, and that performance is affected by styles of leadership. Therefore, auxiliary research is essential to clarify, explore, and identify the impact of national culture on organizational performance and leadership style (Aarons, 2006).
Further literature on the correlations amid the study variables
When examining performance, leadership styles, and organizational or national culture, it emerges that there are various correlations amongst these variables. Most literature reviews on the subject have partially highlighted the correlations amid performance and leadership styles as well as the correlation amid organizational performance and national or organizational culture. However, other research studies have analyzed the relationship between leadership styles and national culture.
Organizational performance and leadership styles
When the research studies account on leadership styles are reviewed, the literature shows that performance and leadership may be generally classified into various essential segments. According to Argyris (1955), primary researches conducted on leadership styles focused on the identification of personality traits that sorted out flourishing and influential leaders. Based on Stodgill’s (1948) trait premises assertions, it is assumed that triumphant managers are naturally born given that such leaders possess some inherent attributes that readily differentiates them from those deemed as poor principals or non-leaders. Nevertheless, the difficulties encountered when authenticating and categorizing such attributes gave rise to the pervasive disapproval of the trait approaches. As a result, the criticism signaled the emergence of both the behavioral as well as style strategies to organizational leadership.
Theorists such as Likert (1961) alongside Hemphill and Coons (1957), who anchored their arguments on behavioral and style approaches, changed the prominence afar the leadership traits to the styles and behaviors that were adopted by organizational leaders. The key investigative results drawn from these initial researches assert that successful organizational managers tend to assume either a participatory leadership style or autonomous styles. A study conducted by Bowsers and Seashore (1966) showed that such primary researches dwelt on the identification of the single but the best leadership approach.
Mullins (1999) claims that the behavioral and leadership style premises, just like the trait presumptions, have a major drawback in that the approach tends to disregard the key roles played by the situational factors when ascertaining how individual, organizational leaders are effective. From this weakness, Vroom and Yetton (1974) formulated the contingency and situational, organizational leadership premises that transformed the importance to the circumstance-responsive organizational leadership from the single best leadership approach. Whereas every research emphasizes the significance of various factors, the common precept under which the contingency and situational presumptions were formulated asserts that the success of organizational leaders relies on the comprehension and diagnosis of the situational parameters. However, adopting the most suitable leadership styles for handling every event follows the understanding and diagnosis of the situational factors closely.
In the evident revert to the single best leadership approach, the current leadership researches seem to contrast the “transformational leadership style” with “transactional leadership.” Howell and Avolio (1993), in their study, claim that unlike transformational leaders, transactional leaders appear to have the inborn abilities to inspire assistants besides being passionate and farsighted leaders. Bass and Avolio (1993), in contrast, state that transactional leaders often concentrate on the exchange affiliations with the organizational employees and are equally instrumental.
Even though the above analysis shows that studies on organizational leadership styles have been periodically criticized, topical studies have vested interests in the role played by leadership styles towards organizational success. The leaders’ success, as argued by Fiedler (1996), is amongst the key determinant of either the failure or success of a country, organization, or even a group. Literature shows that as a result of the increasing levels of the external market environment turbulences and volatilities, organizations have opted to develop and train leaders to equip them with the necessary coping skills (Hennessey, 1998; Darcy & Kleiner, 1991). The assertions are derived from the hypotheses that directly correlate organizational performances and leadership styles. However, such as presumptions need a decisive study examination.
The broadly illustrious case studies that show positive correlations amid organizational performance and leadership styles are found in various subjective organizational performance development records accredited to the transformation of leadership styles (Vroom & Yetton, 1974; Quick, 1992). Nevertheless, experiential research studies that examine the correlations amid performance and organizational leadership styles seem to be deficient. For instance, a distinguished case that can be exempted relates to the comprehensive research on the impacts of organizational leadership style on the Icelandic Fishing Ship Corporation performances. In this unexpected case study perspective, it is suggested that the performance disparities accruing under comparable settings to different corporation fishing ships could explain by the ship’s captains’ leadership skills. A study conducted by Thorlindsson (1987) for three years confirmed that the qualities of leadership styles, which each team leader of a vessel possessed, contributed between 35.0% and 49.0% of different ship crews catch variations.
Additional research studies examining the correlations amid organizational performance and leadership styles are consistent with the “single best leadership approach” argument recurrence. For example, the resurfacing importance attached to the charismatic leadership style is of specific significance given that scholars such as Bass and Avolio (1993) often called this style of leadership as the transformational organizational management technique. Various scholars, including Howell and Avolio (1993), have theorized that transformational leadership styles depict positive correlations to the performances of an organization. In theory, Quick (1992), along with Kottler and Heskett (1992) argue that transformational leaders tend to have both stirring and farsighted skills that encourage organizational minors to offer improved results or deliver better performance.
To summarize, Slater (1995) and Mullins (1999) claim that it is evidenced that the correlation amid organizational performances and leadership styles appears to be subjective and recurrently focuses more on the leaders’ transformational responsibilities towards realizing business success. Thus, it appears that some researches reply to the Porter and Mckibbin (1988) examination, which alleged that most studies claiming to support such assertions are experientially supposed or inconclusively deduced. The indecisive or inadequate disposition of the study findings on the nature of organizational or employee performance and leadership styles call for further research to be carried to determine the correlations that exist amid these two study parameters, organizational performance, and leadership styles.
Organizational performance and national culture
Whereas studies reveal that the correlations amid performances and leadership styles are subjective, scores of researches have experientially scrutinized the association that exists between organizational performances and the adopted culture. When study literature is critically examined, it appears that the conclusions drawn on organizational or national culture are amongst the incredibly accepted conceptions in the organizational and management presumption fields. According to Martin (1992), it is true that amongst the cultural conceptions manifestation is the augmenting quantity of hypothetical perceptions about the concept of culture as well as the managerial studies utilizing the model of culture as claimed by Harris and Ogbonna (2000).
Aarons (2006) argued that the scholarly approval of the cultural concept devoid of the typical skepticisms and tiffs related to the novel theories appears to be the key signal of the alleged significance of the conception. Nevertheless, this hardly surmises that there could be some consent on the application and meaning of the conception. For Harris and Ogbonna (2000), this could be quite the opposite, given that there seem to be prevalent debates concerning the scope and clarity on the concept of national or organizational culture. For instance, Legge (1994) questioned whether the concept of organizational or national culture could be transformed without any difficulty. However, Denison (1996) and Schwartz (1992) disagreed that the concept of national culture can hardly be compared to either climate or politics and power. Other researchers such as Harris and Ogbonna (2000), along with Martin (1992), noted that when the concept of culture is treated as a solitary component, its significance as an assessment instrument could be substantially reduced.
The concept of national culture has attracted the interests of most scholars, making its popularity to be extensive. The pervasive recognition of the concept of national culture ensued from the presumption that most cultures embraced by organizations generate better financial performances. Various practitioners and scholars, including Bradley and Byrne (2007), together with Denison (1990), consistently argued that organizational performances are reliant on the extent to which the corporations’ cultural standards are strong and how they are generally collective.
Based on Harris and Ogbonna (2000) assertions, the arguments that the cultures adopted by a particular organization materialize to be correlated to that organization’s performances appear to be derived from the apparent responsibility that could be played by national culture to generate the requisite competitive advantage. Besides, literature hints that the manner through which national culture could assist in creating a competitive advantage is by identifying the organizations’ limits. This should, however, be done in a way that limits the info processing scopes to suitable heights or using strategies that enhance interactions amongst individuals. Harris and Ogbonna (2000) equally argue that the robustly held and the extensively collective standards allow the organizations’ management to make the workforce response forecasts concerning some strategic preferences, thus curtailing the undesired outcomes scales.
Philosophers like Hemphill and Coons (1957), on the other hand, argued that the competitive advantages, which could be sustained by organizations, could only accrue from creating the corporation’s proficiencies that can hardly be copied and which are better than those competencies depicted by market competitors. Up to this point, it emerges that national or organizational cultures showing the unique qualities serve as the prospective dominant resources for breeding organizational competitive advantage over other market rivals. In essence, scholars such as Kennedy and Anderson (2002), as well as Thorlindsson (1987), consistently recommended that investigators and corporations should always yearn to take advantage of the manifold advantages that culture can provide instead of concentrating on the extra concrete organizational aspects.
Scholars who initially correlated organizational performances to national culture materialized to be indisputable in most assertions they made. The academic efforts produced by the ‘distinction writers’ clearly illustrates this point. For instance, Darcy and Kleiner (1991), along with Denison (1990) argued that triumphant corporations could be differentiated via the capabilities they possess while promoting cultural principles that appear to be in harmony with the selected policies or market strategies. Legge (1994) claims that even though such views complied with the original reputation, the prime precepts under which the arguments were derived from encountered widespread disapproval.
From the time when this subject became apparent for investigations, most scholars who assessed the correlations amid organizational performances and national culture appeared to be extra cautious. Denison (1990), for instance, suggested that there could be some correlations amid organizational performance and particular traits of national culture, although all characteristics append various provisions. To be specific, Howell and Avolio (1993) asserted that the adopted cultures could often remain correlated to better organizational performances provided such cultures are capable of acclimatizing to the ecological status variations. Moreover, culture ought not just to be extensively collective or strong, but should equally possess inimitable attributes that can hardly be reproduced. In recent years, however, Paxson (1992) and Nicholls (1988) have noted that the correlations amid performance and culture appear to be questionable. For Barney (1991), the mounting recognition of the competitive gain based on the resource-founded observation claims that the scale at which national culture could be conceived in the determination of prolonged merit may be reliant on the sustainability, inimitability, and one-off of the apprehensive culture.
Generally, there are assorted and affluent study literature on the topic of national culture. The level of affluence, as claimed in most study literature materialized to be derived from the assertions that organizational performances are correlated to various cultural aspects. Whereas most academicians constantly question the universal correlations amid organizational performance and culture, ample verifications are showing that organizational performances are closely correlated to national culture.
National culture and leadership styles
From the previous literature reviews on the correlations amid organization performance and leadership styles as well as the association amid organization performances and national culture, it emerged that the corporations’ performances are reliant upon the conscious association of the adopted organization’s strategic principles with standards of workforces. Such eminent associations apparently denote both the positive and negative correlations amid leadership styles and national or organizational cultures. The subsequent section reviews the study literature on the impact of culture on leadership styles.
Amongst the best methods of revealing the correlations amid leadership styles and the adopted culture is via examining the extent to which organizational premises conceptualize the issue of culture. In fiscal 1999, Hartog et al. delineated two strategies that could be drawn on when studying the organizational cultural incident. First, Hartog et al. (1999) claimed that culture could be perceived as anything that could be easily influenced. Secondly, culture could be seen as an aspect of the varying managerial parameter, also called a managerial variable. As a result, the impact, direction, and nature of these influences could be reliant upon the leadership capabilities and proficiencies. Literature offered by Simms (1997) and Quick (1992) illustrates the far-reaching support for such observations by extolling the transformational leadership’s intrinsic worth. On the contrary, Schein (1992), in conjunction with Bass and Avolio (1993), claims in their respective studies that provided culture materialize as a fundamental organizational component. Cultural attributes shape leadership variables such as responses, mind-set, as well as judgments.
According to the observations made by Schein (1992), leadership styles and national culture are entangled. Schein demonstrated the correlations between these two variables through observing the associations linking organization culture and leadership styles within the corporations’ life succession perspectives. Therefore, when the development of a corporation takes place, the organization initiator tries to design a corporation reflecting the perceived viewpoint and standards. The originator, in this respect, tends to design and mold the corporation’s cultural traits. Nevertheless, while time fades away and the corporation advances, the crafted corporate cultures put much pressure on the leadership styles, thereby shaping various styles and procedures embraced by the corporate leaders. Schein (1992) assertions on the correlation amid leadership styles and national culture were eventually summarized and mirrored by Bass and Avolio (1993) in their studies. The latter scholars claimed that the correlations amid these two conceptions represented the enduring relationship whereby the organization leaders mold the existing culture. In contrast, the resultant culture consequently shapes the leaders.
According to research literature, scholars like Bass and Avolio (1993) demonstrated the correlations amid the culture and organizational leadership styles through observing the impacts of various headship styles on the prevailing national or organizational cultures. Derived from the arguments made by Bass and Avolio (1993), it is apparent that most transactional managers are inclined to manage within the prevailing cultural restrictions and margins. However, transformational leaders are reportedly said to function in the direction of transforming the existing culture of an organization according to the corporate missions and visions. From the research examinations made by Yilmaz and Ergun (2008), it is supposed that prominent organizational leaders always aspire to build up and enhance personal proficiencies, which could facilitate the alteration of cultural facets to augment the performances of the corporation.
Studies conducted by Schein (1992), Quick (1992), Nicholls (1988) as well as Bass and Avolio (1993) indicate that there is supportive literature on the correlations amid the culture and leadership styles. Nevertheless, the findings from these studies show that there is a deficient empirical assessment corroborating the correlation amid the implications of corporation performance and national culture. An investigative exploration performed on managerial transformation using the centralized municipal service of the U.S. acts like a special case analysis. In this study, Hennessey (1998) concluded that the styles of organizational management contributed significantly towards fostering an apt corporate culture that, in turn, assisted in improving particular state reforms implementations. Furthermore, Hennessey (1998) argued that organizational leaders who are deemed the most successful managers tend to encourage, uphold, and support corporate cultures, which enhance the kind of organizational transformation envisaged by the reinventing state while the employee competence and efficacy increase.
From the literature review on the topic under discussion, it is apparent that there is a positive or negative correlation amid organizational performance and the adopted culture, correlation amid corporation performance, and the widely embraced leadership styles, as well as the connection amid the espoused culture and leadership styles. However, it emerges that all these parameters have been disjointedly studies by different scholars. It is interesting to note that a small number of experiential research studies managed to combine the assessment of organizational performance, styles of corporate leadership, and the concept of national culture concurrently.
A handful of scholars and researchers suggested that (i) styles of leadership and the adopted national culture are correlated, (ii) better organizational performances are correlated to some kinds of corporate cultures, and (iii) organization or employee performances are influenced by embraced styles of management or leadership. However, there exist some literature gaps on the subject under discussion given that the detailed structure and nature of correlations amid these study conceptions materialize to be incompletely comprehended by both non-scholars and scholars. Given the presence of literature gaps, it is apparent that auxiliary research studies ought to be conducted to assist in the identification, investigation, and clarification of the patterns and nature of correlations that exist amid organizational performance, styles of leadership, and national culture.
From the study literature that has been reviewed on this topic, some conclusions can be drawn or derived from these scholarly literature reviews. To start with, studies conducted by Bradley and Byrne (2007) alongside Quick (1992) confirm that the alleged correlations amid organization performances and styles of leadership are broadly anchored on subjective facts. On the other hand, the correlations amid organizational or employee performances and the embraced national culture seem to enjoy the support of experiential research studies, as claimed by Denison (1990) together with Bass and Avolio (1993). Founded on research studies namely Schein (1992) as well as Bass and Avolio (1993) suggesting that the styles of organizational leaderships can transform the nature of the adopted national culture, the following proposition could be drawn:
Proposition One: The correlations amid the performances of an organization and the styles of leadership could intercede through the type and category of the adopted national culture. From this proposition, pressures from both the internal and external surroundings seem to influence all the study parameters, namely the managerial performance, national culture, as well as styles of leadership. This can be illustrated by diagram one below.
Study literature on styles of leadership in an organization and national culture has shown that the two parameters greatly impact on each other. For instance, the results of the research study conducted by Bass and Avolio (1993) showed that the styles of leadership adopted by organizations influence either negatively or positively on the organization’s malfunction or triumph. Bowsers and Seashore (1966), on the other hand, claim that the correlations amid organization performance, styles of leadership, and national culture appear to have been expansively researched. In most studies, the research results indicate that the transformational style of organizational leadership, including empowering of the workforce as well as setting up comprehensible visions, gave rise to increased performance (Bowsers, & Seashore, 1966; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Kennedy & Anderson, 2002).
Carrying out this research study requires ample material resources such as time and finance. This may be a hindrance to the successful completion of the study. Besides, administering the questionnaire to the study participants will require seeking permission from relevant authorities before embarking on the actual study. However, it is anticipated that not all participants will grant an opportunity to the researcher to survey while others may be unwilling to divulge the companies’ information.
Factor analyses assumptions
The measures of national culture factor scrutiny engendered three readily interpreted issues. The interpretations come in the form of original sub-scales measuring supportive, innovative, and bureaucratic national cultures. The use of scree exams and eigenvalue conspiracy inspection proposed a three factors resolution despite a one-basis criterion signifying an extraction of a six-factor. The adoption of three factors solution augmented as a result of the interpretation of the factors. The subscale of measuring the innovative culture initiated the loading of all the six items on the initial factor. Equally, the seven items from the subscale of bureaucratic culture sturdily defined the second factor. However, the loading was done from two separate items resulting from the subscales of innovative and supportive cultures.
Furthermore, the indicator items of supportive culture mostly defined the third factor. The factor experienced a resilient pessimistic loading from a solitary item from a sub-scale of bureaucratic culture. From this study, the derived factor tallies, therefore, were regarded as supportive culture, bureaucratic culture, as well as innovative cultures. The item of styles of leadership has been employed to gauge leadership manners, such as initiating structures and consideration. Thus, the factor analysis items recommended for the possible extraction of four factors through the usage of scree examinations. Though the factors could be readily understood in regards to the initial two leadership styles, the two factors solution was espoused. The other two factors gave roughly a 12.0% increase in the extracted variance percentages. Generally, the variables arising from this research factor scores were subsequently known as initiating structure and consideration.
Similarly, the factor analysis of the items of organizational performance yielded a resilient innovative factor. Indeed, the eigenvalues of the first two factors ranged from 67% (6.7) and 165 (1.6). The study proposed that a solitary worldwide measure on organizational performance should be obtained for current research. The single variable that is organizational performance was defined by the factor score acquired from the single factor resolution. As a result, the items of commitment to the organizational performance produced an analogous discovery form the factor analysis. The study shows that the eigenvalues of the organizational performance in this context were 745 (7.4) and 15% (1.5). The research analysis employed the item of commitment, which was one measure of organizational performance as a derivative from the factor scores from the single-factor solution.
Analysis of findings
Before exploring the relationship between the national culture, leadership styles, and organization performance, it was necessary to outline the boundary of the data to be analyzed. The coming up with constructive guidelines emerged through the application of the varimax primary replacement factor investigation. Moreover, factor analysis was considered compulsory since it was found to be far-sighted statically to find out whether the assumed measures of the national culture and management styles take into consideration different magnitudes of performance indicators. Diagram 1 indicates the examination of the most important components of items relating to the national culture. The analysis of items relating to leadership styles is contained in diagram 2. Each of these analyses was individually conducted. The factor results were preserved since the data showed evidence of an Eigenvalue larger than one, and the data was theoretically understandable and interpretable according to the Kaiser criterion. Erasing study parameters to be assessed as a result of disparities or due to difficulties in interpreting data was hardly essential.
Figure 3: tests outcomes for scale validation and consistency in leadership styles and national culture
|Scale||Inter variable association||Cronbach alpha coefficient||Number of scale variables|
NB. Each association is significant at 0.1%
Figure 2: The key constituents analyzing the styles of leadership measurement
|Communality||Instrumental leadership||Supportive leadership||Participative leadership|
|The leader schedules the work to be done||0.52182||0.66361|
|The leader maintains definite performance standards||0.60645||0.66436|
|The leader decides on how and what work to be done||0.60737||0.69205||-0.30433|
|The leader explains how the work should be done||0.61568||0.78005|
|The leader treats all the employees equally||0.57087||0.62806|
|The leader does little things to ensure a pleasant situation||0.49712||0.69752|
|The leader looks at the individual welfare of group members||0.64240||0.73875||0.30527|
|The leader help employees make their jobs extra pleasant||0.71243||0.78876|
|The leader listens to advise from subordinates on assignments to be made||0.73284||0.81643|
|The leader inquires suggestion from the juniors||0.76434||0.82952|
|The leader consults with subordinates when faced with difficulties||0.76046||0.84408|
|The leader consults with subordinates before taking actions||0.80183||0.85945|
|The leader requires the say from employees before making decisions||0.76974||0.86698|
|Percentage (%)of cumulative variance||66.2||55.4||39.9|
|The explained percentage (%)variance||10.8||15.4||39.9|
In diagram 1, the primary elements study of procedures of managerial customs was modified from the works that have been done by various scholars. According to the expectations, the factor scrutiny of these items results in the drawing out of four factors that cumulatively give details to close to sixty percent of the discrepancy. Among the four features, the first aspect loads into the vector generating item to over threes Eigenvalue and explains over twenty-two percent of the discrepancy. The actuality that most of these study parameters emerge from assessing the scope to which a nationalized culture can bring know-how, the outcome was acknowledged as well as the identified inventive nationwide culture in leading a firm and deriving maximum organizational benefits. The second feature result loads into four items with vector generating an Eigenvalue of over two and explains close to sixteen percent of the whole of the differences. Every item within the four items in the second category seems to estimate the level of competitiveness of the national culture.
The after concluding study parameter fallout massed 4-parameters into the scalar, producing values beyond the known Eigen-dual. The 4-study parameters found within this factored upshots materialize to estimate the intensity under national technical culture. As a result, the factors are named bureaucratic norms. The concluding feature loads four items into the vector generating and Eigenvalue of less than one. These four characteristics emphasize the degree to which the national culture is geared towards creating and maintaining the internal community within an organization. Thus, the feature is given the name of community culture.
It should be emphasized that the labels given to the four main features match up with the adhocracy, market, clan, and hierarchical way of life within the national norms. However, the names aggressive, inventive, and technical and community norms are considered more convenient, appropriate, and theoretically suitable. These names are consistent with the names that have been used in practice, academic studies, and scholarly articles.
Diagram 2 represents the principal component analysis of the adapted items that measure leadership styles. The feature investigation results in the drawing out of three-feature resolution that gives details to over sixty-six percent of the total variances. The first-factor resolution within this category loads onto the vector generating an Eigenvalue of over five. The first-factor solution contains five items, which contain solutions that are geared towards the measurement of management contribution. The type of leadership participation is a non-directive form of role-clarifying performance, which is measured by the degree to which leaders permit their assistants to influence pronouncements by asking for input and involvements. The five items in this category are consistent and can easily be interpreted, resulting in naming the items as the participative leadership style, alternatively, participative leadership.
The successive study parameter massed 4-parameters into the scalar producing values beyond the known Eigen-dual. The items in this category of factor solution account for over fifteen percent of the total discrepancy and seem to measure the leadership consideration. The gauging of supportive leadership, which may also be called leadership consideration, emphasizes the extent to which the performance of the leaders can be seen as understanding, good-natured and thoughtful to the needs of their juniors. As a result, the succeeding parameter resolutions are acknowledged besides being named sympathetic management techniques or compassionate guidance.
The last feature explanation is geared towards determining the management instrumentality. The leadership style is measured by the third-factor items that can closely be referred to as transactional or directive leadership. The factors are designed to gauge the level of management specificity of the expectations, the capability of the leader establishing procedures to be followed, and the ability of the management to allocate tasks. Thus, the resolution was finally named an influential management technique or influential headship.
The fact that the hypercritical or the proportional gauging of behavior is widely used, the performance index was built by computing the summated mean of all the items in each category. The scale that has been drawn from the calculations is called the organizational performance. In the same way, indicators were created from the four aspects of the national culture, and the three outlines of the management approach through computing the average of all the sums tallies for every entry in all factors.
Before examining and offering a description of the relationship between the leadership style, culture, and performance, it would be very critical to measure the level of validity and reliability for all the indices that were used in the analysis. The reliability was determined by calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The calculation of the Cronbach alpha co-efficient produced results that were between 0.669-0.928. Out of the eight items measured, six produced results that were above the Nunnally criterion of 0.699 and, therefore, could be confidentially said to be acceptable and reliable. The dual study parameters found beneath the required standards generated apprehension. However, there is no agreement among the scholars that the Nunnally criterion value should be used. The agreed value is between 0.6 and 0.7. Therefore, the value that was used is correct. As indicated before, the deletion of extra items will critically decrease the value of the coefficient. The conclusion that can be drawn based on the above results and statements is that the scales used were above the criterion and thus acceptable and reliable.
In addition to the preceding arguments on the ways through which the legitimacy of the contents of the designed questionnaire can be improved, the formulation and execution were thoroughly done to measure the corroboration of index operations for every quantity of objects in the scale. All these measures were linked to the entire scale. The kind of analysis used here pointed out the bi-variate association in the predictable course representing convergent validity (Figure 3). Another approach was adopted to measure the discriminate validity. The approach involved connecting the entire procedures applied during the study. The correlation coefficient was measured against the alpha-coefficient of factors. Within the national culture and the style of leadership, there were no correlation coefficients greater than the alpha-coefficient. The conclusion that could be drawn was that the measures used during the study have discriminatory factors. The overall soundness, as well as consistency assessments, led to the conclusion that the dimensions applied within the numerical examinations, are found within the satisfactory soundness and consistency principle.
In general, the validity and consistency tests suggest that the drawn on as well as the approved procedures could assist the impending numerical studies to be within the acknowledged validity and consistency standards (Nayyar, 1988).
Figure 4: The discriminant measurement of consistency assessing styles of leadership and national culture
|Community culture||Bureaucratic culture||Innovative culture||Competitive culture|
NB: Apart from the correlations coefficients, the remaining entries that have been italicized represent the alpha coefficients adopted by Cronbach.
|Instrumental leadership||Supportive leadership||Participative leadership|
NB: Apart from the correlations coefficients, the remaining entries that have been italicized represent the alpha coefficients adopted by Cronbach.
Figure 5: The descriptive statistics for the research study
|Standard Deviation (δ)||Mean (µ)|
|Instrumental style of leadership||1.17||3.74|
|Supportive style of leadership||1.24||3.89|
|Participative style of leadership||1.37||3.39|
To explore the primary research data, the researcher examined the explanatory statistical measures relating to organizational performance, styles of leadership, and culture (Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008). From the initial statements made, seven-point scales were used to gauge each parameter in the questionnaire. The results gave rise to an average of four. However, when the national culture was gauged using the four items, it emerged that every measure fell beyond an average of 4, but having realistic central tendency distribution (Vroom & Yetton, 1974). On the contrary, items used to gauge leadership styles fell relatively under the average, and the participative style of management had a small mean. Given that, the organizational performance trial aims are approved to be greatly correlated to the employed performance indicators, the mean for the relative high organizational performance in this particular research signifies above the SBU performance standard (Stogdill, 1948).
Assumption 1: National culture mediates the correlation amid organizational performance and styles of leadership (see diagram one).
In an attempt to examine the correlations amid organizational performance, national culture, and styles of leadership, the study relied on a path-analysis strategy (Bradley & Byrne, 2007). The correlations in the path scheme were developed using multiple regression formulas. The proposed path test offered comprehensible deliberations on the apparent correlations amid the study parameters as opposed to the application of regression analysis only (Campbell & Freeman, 1991). When compared with simple regression, path method has merits, given that it offers insights into the degree of the coefficients results, indirect results, as well as direct consequences. Bowman and Ambrosini (1997) state that path analysis assists in establishing if the direct effects are negated, diminish, or embellish as a result of the allied indirect effects. Therefore, the employed path method assisted in the assessment and provision of the direct and indirect correlations amide study parameters (Howell & Avolio, 1993).
Figure 6 offers the importance of the study equations, the multiple determination coefficients (r2), and the coefficients of consistent regression (ß or beta) (Hennessey, 1998). In figure 7, the oblique and express impacts of the self-directed nationwide culture, as well as the techniques of headship on managerial output, are offered. The overall impacts consist of the summation of both indirect and direct impacts (Darcy & Kleiner, 1991). Nevertheless, the sequential weights of the beta have undemanding multiplicative scale measurements used in calculating the indirect impacts (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006; Campbell & Freeman, 1991). For all the formulated study equations, the homo-scedasicity, normality, linearity, and multi-collinearity tests were carried out, but hardly any setbacks were reported (Xenikou & Furnham, 1996).
Figure 6 below provides the equations for the regression analysis used in constructing path analysis shown in diagram two. Figure 7, on the other hand, offers a summary of figure 6. The summary claims that the three leadership styles measurements and the four national culture measurements are relatively correlated to the performance of an organization. The correlations amid organizational performance and the indirect variables tend to vary in various perspectives. First, the correlations vary for the degree of impact. Secondly, the relations amid organizational performance and the autonomous variables differ based on the kind of impacts, and lastly, the correlation differs concerning the level of directness.
Two study parameters, namely competitive and innovative cultures, which are part of the seven autonomous factors, have a direct impact on the organizational performance, as indicated in diagram 2, figure 7, and figure 6. For instance, when the culture of competitiveness is embraced in an organization, it exerts both an indirect and direct impact on organizational performance. In contrast, innovativeness directly influences organizational performances (see diagram 2 and figure 7). Quite the opposite, the dimension of the techniques of managerial guidance, as well as the societal and technical background measurements, have an oblique impact on corporate outcomes.
Figure 6: The organizational performance regression and the overall impacts of autonomous parameters namely national culture and styles of leaderships
|Independent variable||Dependent variable||Sign of F||R2||Beta (ß)|
|Competitive culture||Instrumental leadership||0.0000||0.15||-0.11|
|Innovative culture||Instrumental leadership||0.0000||0.28||-0.13|
Figure 7: The indirect and direct impacts of autonomous or independent factors on organizational performances
|Independent variables||Indirect impact||Direct impact||Overall impacts|
From the above figures and path analysis chart, both the indirect and direct impact s of national culture on organizational performance and styles of leadership. The kinds of impacts mark the second manner in which the autonomous factors influence affect performance. The managerial output is optimistically correlated to the two facets of customs exerting oblique influence and express impacts on the societal traditions. However, the bureaucratic culture measure has an aggregate of 8% (0.08) indirect influence. Correspondingly, the managerial performance gets constructive and oblique influences from different management techniques and procedures, which are accommodating and participatory techniques. In reality, the influential management technique has an oblique and unconstructive impact on managerial output, with an overall consequence of 8.0% (0.08). The supportive leadership style has a 9% (0.09) effect on performance, while the participative style has 11% (0.11).
The independent factors influence fluctuate in regards to the impact of their overall effect on organizational performance. The utmost influence is wielded on performance by the direct and positive effects of competitive and innovative cultures, as proven in the reviews in figure 7. On the contrary, the indirect correlation amid community and bureaucratic culture is feebler remarkably but more important. Hence, with the pervasive influence upon organizational performance, the influence of supportive, participative, and instrumental leadership styles is comparable. In short, even though the form and influence of the effect of the independent factors vary, all of them brandish influence on organizational performance. The previously developed suggestion find back up form the finding that indirect linkage amid organizational performance and instrumental, participative, and supportive styles of leadership. Finally, the later proposal leads to a proposition that national culture mediates the linkage between organizational performance and styles of leadership as adequately proven in this study.
Statistical charts and graphs were also used to determine the impact of national culture on organizational performance and styles of leadership. From the survey results, there were 30 research respondents. The number of male respondents was 23, making up 74.19% of the total respondents, whereas female respondents were eight, that is, 25.81% of the respondents. All the research respondents gave their details about service duration, occupational position, as well as biodata.
Based on previous study findings by Yilmaz and Ergun (2008), customer satisfaction indicates whether the adopted national culture has an impact on organizational performance and styles of leadership. From the study results, 96.55% of the organizational employees indicate that customer satisfaction increases based on the adopted management devotion culture. While organizational management strives to increase clients’ satisfaction, they adopt a corporate culture that would enhance performance and accommodate various leadership styles. Only 3.45% remain unsure whether the styles of leadership adopted by the management would increase client satisfaction.
Styles of organizational leadership usually determine the company’s monthly or annual performance. However, national culture is one thread that normally pervades the two parameters. From the results, 75.86% of the total study respondents accept that the annual sales volume of the company would increase whenever the management assumes encouraging and innovative leadership styles. About 13.79% are not sure of the annual sales volume, whereas 10.34% of the employees asserted that the organization reports low annual sales volume. Kottler and Heskett (1992) confirmed the results. In their study, Kottler and Heskett (1992) reported that when the adopted national culture allows employees to be flexible in their operations, the market share of the corporation eventually increases. In turn, the annual sales volume of the company increases. In this study, 75.86% of the research respondents confirmed that corporate culture that allows for the employees’ flexibility would increase the market share of the corporation. The study shows that 13.79% of the study respondents remained unsure, but 10.34% refuted the claims.
From the study results, the adopted national culture affects the level of competitive advantage attained by the company. About 79.41% of the research respondents admit that companies with innovative culture certainly report increased performances and have a competitive advantage over other market rivals. 11.76% and 8.82% of the study respondents claimed that community culture and bureaucratic cultures enable corporations to attain a competitive advantage. The results indicate that the performance of an organization and the adopted leadership styles are influenced by the prevailing corporate culture (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Despite the fact that national culture integrates various cultures, including community, bureaucratic, and innovative cultures, organizational leaders adopting innovative culture would probably report increased output. Dismal performances are associated with community and bureaucratic cultures (Nayyar, 1988).
The study results further show that 96.55% of the employees would prefer working in companies that encourage the development and training of the workforce. Such a culture increases the satisfaction of all demands placed by clienteles, an assertion that 3.45% of the study respondents hardly acknowledged. When an organization endorses a culture that ensures all leaders approve the training and development of all workforces, the annual sales will increase. For instance, 60.61% of the study respondents stated that offering incentives would increase the organization’s total annual sales. Sacking of the unproductive employees to increase the year sales output was only approved by 18.18% of the research respondents. 15.15% of the employees are unsure of the national culture that would eventually increase the organizational performance measured in terms of annual sales. Besides, 6.06% do not know how the organizations where they work to increase their annual sales.
Howell and Avolio (1993) claim that national culture direct impacts on organizational performance and styles of leadership. However, 62.07% of the study respondents stated that the organization where they work hardly retains all the workforces to satisfy the clients’ demands and capitalize on the generated annual sales. In contrast, 37.93% of the employees admitted that their company espouses the culture of retaining all employees to maximize accruing sales and accomplish the demands placed by clients. Nevertheless, it is apparent that whenever a company encourages the innovative culture amongst employees, the total production would be augmented. The assertion was acknowledged by 89.66% of the research respondents though disapproved by 10.34% of those who participated in the study.
Some national cultures hardly allow leaders to incorporate or consider the contributions made by their subordinates during decision-making processes. The study results, however, indicate that leaders, in most cases, are obliged to consult with the subordinates before taking actions that affect the stakeholders and the organization. The results show that 36.67% of the respondents acknowledged being consulted, whereas 33.33% of them have never been consulted by organizational leaders during the decision making process. Out of the total respondents, 23.33% remains uncertain whether there are consultations between organizational leaders and their subordinates, while 6.67% did not understand what goes on during the decision-making processes.
On the other hand, company leaders often encounter different challenges in the course of organization management and operations. The problems require such leaders to adopt different styles of management to handle emanating problems. In this particular study, 50% of the study respondents admit that leaders recognize their subordinates when faced with problems. 46.67% indicated that leaders fail to some extent to recognize their subordinates when they are faced with management problems. For example, the results showed that 73.33% of the study respondents agreed with the fact that organizational leaders ask for suggestions from the junior employees or subordinates. Just 10% of the respondents disagreed with this fact, while 16.67% remained neutral about this study aspect.
Additional styles of leadership include listening to the subordinates regarding measures to be undertaken to improve organizational performances. 43.33% of the employees admit that leaders who often listen to the subordinates’ advice report improved organizational and employee performances. Just 23.33% disagreed with this management style, while 26.67% of the study respondents remained undecided. Conversely, there are instances when leaders encourage participatory culture across the organization. Workers reported that in case organizational leaders take part in accomplishing the assigned tasks, the duties become rather pleasant. The assertion was supported by 58.06% of the total respondents though 12.90% disagreed.
Even though Howell and Avolio (1993) claim that transactional and transformational leadership styles significantly affect performance, supportive and participative leadership styles help employees to have their opinions, development plans, and ideas to be incorporated in the management strategies. Based on the study findings, 70.97% of the employees agreed with the claim, whereas 12.90% strongly acknowledged the assertion. Very few study respondents (9.68%) disagreed with this fact. National culture also appeared to shape how organizational leaders attract, develop, and retain employees with different backgrounds and diverse positive plans. Most leaders are concerned with the personal welfare of each employee as opposed to their status quos.
According to the study findings, 86.21% of the study respondents noted that their leaders offer schedules on the tasks to be completed and to encourage workers to contribute positively towards meeting the organizational goals. Even though 27.59% of the employees hardly acknowledged that their leaders did not offer support to help in the accomplishment of the assigned tasks, 72.41% of the study respondents with the management helped them realize the development plans and tasks.
93.34% of the employees approved that national culture is essential when it comes to the company’s productivity and workforce performance. National culture affects various aspects of the management of an organization. For instance, national culture may encourage the company employees to be creative and develop plans that might boost their performances.
The study implications and conclusions
The study combining national culture, organizational performance, and leadership is hard to find. However, certain studies have proven that linkages amid organizational performance and styles of leadership, as well as national culture and performance, are real. The notions linking national culture and leadership styles suggest that the rapport between performance and styles of leadership is interceded upon by the national culture (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Pragmatic evidence seconding the fact that leadership styles are indirectly associated with performance is adequately established after elaborate research scrutiny to redress the disproportion in this fiction. The cultural traits of innovation and competition are directly allied to performance, whereas those of national and community are indirectly linked.
Conversely, presumption lay that national culture is directly associated with organizational performance such that its traits have an instant influence on efficiency and effectiveness. The research outcomes provide varied backing for this opinion; however, strong cultures are optimistically allied to the organizational achievement according to the earlier study on cultural strength (Bowsers & Seashore, 1966). At present, the empirical study shows that both community and bureaucratic cultures are no longer directly linked to organizational performance. However, focus on the formation of uniformity, interior cohesion, and assimilation characterizes the community and bureaucratic national cultures. As a result, fruitless internal upkeep occurs from the managerial attention on organizational performance owing to the indirect and feeble linkages amid the internally oriented culture and organizational performance (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997). This can be elucidated as elaborated in figure 7.
Nevertheless, there is optimistic, resilient, and direct affiliation on the scrutiny between innovative and competitive culture and organizational performance. The first multiple regression analysis R2 (multiple determination coefficient), as in figure 6 (six), discover that almost a quarter of the variance in organizational performance is catered for by the competitive and innovative cultures (Campbell & Freeman, 1991). The broad finding that the orientation of organizational culture is dominant towards strategic wants is consistent irrespective of the challenging functions of top managers. The other broad study that is consistent proposes that organizational cultures that are oriented internally are positively associated with performance (Darcy & Kleiner, 1991). Generally, as much as this finding suggests that the adjustment exertions of organizational culture should emphasize peripheral generation focus, it should as well focus on the formation of interior consistency and cohesion.
The generation of corporate competitive advantage finds some inferences from all the inclusive findings. When the internal and external oriented cultures probable advantages are compared, the internally oriented cultures relatively corroborate drawbacks to the organization rather than offering benefits to compete with business rivals (Hall, 1976; Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008). The existence of the organization is at stake, the long-term development is inhibited, and short-term profitability diminishes. All these take place because bureaucratization resulting from the optimistic linkages amid bureaucratic culture and performance. The values that are shared strongly are merely suitable when culture is steered towards peripheral environs (Hartog et al., 1999). The finding is in line with the contemporary research that directly contradicts the theories espousing the generation of extensively shared values. Therefore, constructive and vibrant influences on the managerial output augment from the inventive and aggressive traditions that emerge susceptible to the peripheral circumstances.
The link between organizational performance and the studied styles of leadership entirely intercedes in a certain form of national culture. Consequently, leadership styles are no longer significant towards performance as placed by the unwise analysis of this discovery in diagram 2. The presentation in figure 7 shows that the study of the total effects specifies pervasive indirect and momentous effects on organizational performance (Hennessey, 1998; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). The significant and indirect pervasive effect surfaces even though leadership styles are not the straight forecasters of organizational performance. Also, leadership styles, as in figure 6, portrays a resilient analyst of innovative and competitive cultures, which in turn strongly predicts performance according to the documented multiple regression analyses. All the styles of leadership indirectly associate with performance. However, in figure 7, we find that instrumental leadership makes a negative linkage, while the participative and supportive leadership styles are linked positively (Howell & Avolio, 1993). The above indirect and negative linkage proposal contributes to the fact that transactional leadership is no longer consistent while using larger performance, as indicated in numerous anecdotal researches.
The prevalent understanding of the effects of participative and supportive styles of leadership gets support from the outcomes of the existing researches. Indeed, the participative and supportive styles of leadership are associated positively with competitive and innovative cultures (Legge, 1994). Consequently, the above findings indicate that externally-oriented national culture experience an important influence. The influence augments from the degree to which the factions involved in the course of decision making acquire support from the frontrunners (Nayyar, 1988). The managing culture debate ascends from the above research as practical inference. Hence, the general deduction regarding this discussion shows that particular unforeseen events might outlay influential opportunities on national culture though its administration is impossible (Slater, 1995).
Various suggestions arose from the research findings that, more emphasis on styles of leadership might make available the prospective answers to problems linked with altering national culture (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). As compared to changes in the styles of leadership, which are easily achievable, the management of national culture practically and conceptually is impossible at worst and precisely problematic at best (Stogdill, 1948). Conversely, the study findings propose that programs in the change of leadership are extremely suitable even when fiction is replete with change programs of quick-fix culture aiming at developing organizational performance. Certainly, additional queries arise from this study despite it endeavors to just like other social science researches provide experiential proofs on the rapport between national culture, styles of leadership, and organizational performance (Vroom & Yetton, 1974). Yet, the other optional boulevards for research are set forth by the investigation boundaries.
The fascinating insight of linkages would be delivered through the espousal of the longitudinal nature of research despite the precluded claims of fatality in cross-sectional research design. Equally, the perspective of this study binds all the conclusions, inferences, and findings of this research (Xenikou & Furnham, 1996). As such, the replication of this research in several diverse contexts occurring in dissimilar nations and industries might be involved through fruitful and potential study. The espoused measure to gauge and the styles of leadership and national culture constrains and bounds the outcomes of this research (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Through the adoption of gauges amid leadership styles and cultures that mirror diverse contexts, the extra relational insights are realized.
The carefully chosen measures used are believed to be defensible and accepted as valid and dependable. Indeed, the absence of additional study will render philosophers and general practitioners confused when linking national culture, organizational performance, and leadership styles (Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008). Various research studies hardly showed the explicit and implicit correlations between national culture, styles of leadership, and organizational performance in various organizational theories. However, this particular research study has critically discussed the relationship amid these national culture conceptions as well as the impact these correlations may have on the performance and leadership styles of an organization. Thus, it is difficult to challenge the national culture and styles of organizational leadership since they are so crucial in making effective and successful organizations.
The study further shows that national culture may include innovativeness and bureaucratic culture. 66.67% of the research respondents claimed that innovative culture tends to create an encouraging environment that boosts the employees’ work performances and the company’s success. In case the assumed national culture is encouraging and supportive, clients and employees normally become satisfied as acknowledged by 70% of the study respondents. Thus, national culture influences workforce performances and organizational productivity. From the study, 66.67% of the research respondents stated that national culture facilitated individual employees’ innovativeness and created an encouraging environment for the workforces to boost their work performances and organization success.
On the other hand, 58.62% of the employees claimed that bureaucratic culture negatively affected workforce productivity as well as the success of the corporation. 79.31% of the employees, however, acknowledged that competitive culture helped them adhere to the company mission, change programs and facilitated the staffs’ operational growth. Companies that assume community cultures tend to increase the level of staff performances and managerial competencies, as stated by 62.07% of the study respondents. Finally, an encouraging national culture enables the organizational employees to remain committed to accomplishing the organizational goals and objectives. Most corporations realize this by encouraging the employees to dynamic and risk-takers to tackle the budding organization’s challenges and demands.
Since much of the researches have not dwelt in the correlation between national culture and the other two facets, which are leadership and organization performances, further research is recommended. There is much need to come up with practical evidence showing the relations between the national culture, a variety of leadership styles, and organizational performance. Also, given the fact that this study was limited to some extent, a thorough empirical investigation needs to be done to ascertain some of the claims on how national culture influences leadership styles and the organization’s performances.
Whereas it is apparent that there is positive or negative correlation amid organizational performance and the adopted culture, correlation amid corporation performance, and the widely embraced leadership styles, as well as the connection amid the espoused culture and leadership styles, it emerges that different scholars have disjointedly studied all these parameters. It is interesting to note that a small number of experiential research studies managed to combine the assessment of organizational performance, styles of corporate leadership, and the concept of national culture concurrently.
Also, a handful of researchers suggested that styles of leadership and the adopted national culture are correlated. Secondly, better organizational performances are correlated to some kinds of corporate cultures, and finally, organization or employee performances are influenced by embraced styles of management or leadership. However, there exist some literature gaps on the subject under discussion given that the detailed structure and nature of correlations amid these study conceptions materialize to be incompletely comprehended by both non-scholars and scholars. Given the presence of literature gaps, it is apparent that auxiliary research studies ought to be conducted to assist in the identification, investigation, and clarification of the patterns and nature of correlations that exist amid organizational performance, styles of leadership, and national culture.
However, few studies that have been done confirm that the alleged correlations amid organization performances and styles of leadership are broadly anchored on subjective facts. On the other hand, the correlations amid organizational or employee performances and the embraced national culture seem to enjoy the support of experiential research studies. Further, it is suggested that the styles of organizational leadership can transform the nature of the adopted national culture. The disconnection between these relationships needs to be thoroughly studied so that the conclusion can be drawn from the concrete evidence. However, few investigations on the area should not be undermined. A few studies should be used to inform future researches. The study should also not be limited rather be based on broad limitations to widen the understandings between the concepts.