Explicit preferred leader behaviours across cultures

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a reliable and valid field survey research instrument to assess national cultural cognitive templates of preferred leader behaviour dimensions to facilitate education, development, and training of managerial leaders operating across diverse organisations. Design/methodology/approach The study consists of focus group evaluations of the validity and the translations to local languages of a survey instrument assessing leader behaviour preferences in business organisations. Findings The studies find that the survey instrument and its translations are valid and reliable for assessing preferred leader behaviour across national cultures. The length of the survey is problematic, and a new project is underway to produce a shorter version with equivalent reliability and validity. Research limitations/implications As the research project is long term, at this point, a relatively long survey is available for research, with a shorter version planned for the future. Practical implications Practical implications include producing and validating a field survey research instrument that is reliable and valid across cultures and languages, and can be employed to improve the understanding, development, and education of managers and leaders of international business organisations. Social implications Management and leadership processes are employed in all aspects of life, and can be better understood and improved through this research project. Originality/value The majority of cross-cultural research is leader-centric studies of implicit leader characteristics; this project expands the scope of studies further into follower-centric studies of observed leader behaviour.

From LBDQXII to LBDQ50: preferred leader behavior measurement across cultures

“…Dorfman et al (1997) propose that the phenomenon of leadership is universal across cultures, but that the way in which it is operationalized is culturally specific, supported by Hofstede (2001) and Littrell et al (2018). Project GLOBE (House et al , 2004) provides compelling evidence that business people within cultural groups agree in their beliefs about leadership such that there are statistically significant differences between preferred leader behavior templates in societal cultures.…”

“…An increasing body of evidence speaks of the importance of understanding culturally influenced leader behavior preferences (Littrell et al , 2018; Mustafa and Lines, 2016). Hofstede (2001), House et al (2004) and Littrell (2013) are among the seminal researchers who have found strong connections between leadership dimensions and cultural norms and values.…”

“…The findings of many empirical studies, i.e. Dorfman et al (2012) and Littrell et al (2018), indicate that members of a society develop a cognitive template of preferred leader behaviors and that leaders hence tend to behave in a manner that is consistent with expectations of their respective societies in order to be more effective (House et al , 2013; Littrell et al , 2018, p. 244). The most widely use instrument is the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire XII (LBDQXII) (Northouse, 2013), which measure preferred leader behavior using 12 dimensions, and, per Littrell et al (2018) can effectively describe desired leader behavior in particular cultures.…”

Exploring Preferred Leadership Styles Across Industries: Perspectives of Followers

“…As regards implications of this study for future researches in the domain of leadership, researchers might consider surveying multiple geographical areas in order to pull significant samples in different demographics. There are other instruments that could result in a broader variety of preferred leadership behaviors (for example, see Littrell, et al 2018).…”

Preferred Leader Behaviour in the Business Sector of Lithuania: Follower Diversity Perspective

“…Moreover, they suggested that the LBDQ-XII has "the highest validities averaged across the overarching dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure of their exhaustive array of studies reviewed" (Littrell, 2010, p. 169). Furthermore, there are extensive reliability studies (see Littrell, 2010Littrell, , 2013 of the LBDQ-XII which included Cronbach's α-based reliability analysis and item-to-scale correlational analyses, together with goodness-of-fit tests using structural equations modelling (SEM) (Littrell et al, 2018). 1, 11, 21, 31, 41 0.764 F2 51, 61, 71, 81, 91 0.697 F3 2, 12, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62*, 72, 82, 92 0.517 F4 3, 13, 23, 33, 43, 53, 63, 73, 83, 93 0.813 F5 4, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64, 74, 84, 94 0.705 F6 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95 0.686 F7 6, 16, 26, 36, 46, 56, 66, 76, 86, 96 0.713 F8 7, 17, 27, 37, 47, 57, 67, 77, 87, 97 0.705 F9 8, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58, 68, 78, 88, 98 0.634 F10 9, 29, 49, 59, 89 0.717 F11 19, 39, 69, 79, 99 0.804 F12 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 0.727 George and Mallery (2016, p. 231) provide the rule of thumb for Cronbach alphas, namely 0.9: Excellent, 0.8: Good, 0.7: Acceptable, 0.6: Questionable, 0.5: Poor, and <0.5: Unacceptable.…”