Culture and Preferred Leadership Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Slavic Nations

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between societal cultures and preferred leadership behaviors across seven Slavic nations: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, North Macedonia, Poland, Russia (in two regions), and Serbia. The results depict variations in the associations between cultural dimensions and leadership behaviors within the Slavic context, revealing both consistent patterns and intriguing differences across countries, underscoring their cultural diversity. The obtained results contribute to the field of cross-cultural leadership and provide deeper insights into leadership dynamics within Central and Eastern European countries.

Keywords

culture leadership cross-cultural leadership Slavic country

Introduction

Building upon recent meta-analyses examining leadership (e.g., Crede et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022), which underscore the pivotal role of cultural values in predicting and moderating leadership behaviors and their outcomes, this study extends this research trajectory by exploring the interplays between cultural values and preferred leadership behaviors in seven Slavic countries. The observed countries are categorized into three tribes: South Slavs (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia), West Slavs (the Czech Republic, Poland), and East Slavs (Russia, in this study observed with two regions: Siberian and European Russia).

Even though there has been a growing interest in cross-cultural leadership research (Yurtkoru & Ekmekçi, 2011), recent studies (e.g., Poniedziałek, 2023) indicate the prevalence of a Western-centric approach, mainly rooted in the origins of research in Western Europe and the USA. However, Lee et al. (2014) warn that the mere assumption of cultural generalizability of the Western-derived models in different countries could restrain understanding and application of leadership behaviors worldwide. Therefore, this study offers a nuanced exploration of Eastern European countries, a region conspicuously underrepresented in cross-cultural leadership studies. For example, studies on leadership in Balkan countries only emerged in the early 2000s, indicating the need for comprehensive research on post-socialist and transitional periods (Dogar, 2021). Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the relevance of prior data on Russia collected during the 1990s (Gill & Negrov, 2021), emphasizing the need for updated research in this region. Empirical research in Central and Eastern European countries, such as the Czech Republic and Poland (Sokolova et al., 2018), has raised inquiries into the causes of disparities between cultural types and their effectiveness.

Considering the importance of leadership behavior for the effectiveness of business organizations and the role of cultural values across societies, this paper aims to investigate relationships between societal cultures and preferred leadership behaviors across seven Slavic countries, recognizing the critical role of followers in follower-leader interaction. This explorative study combines a follower-centric approach and a culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004). The comparison of relationships among societal cultures and preferred leadership behavior aims to provide insights into leadership dynamics, broadening the applicability of existing theories to diverse cultural contexts. Specifically, the study findings can benefit companies operating in Central and Eastern Europe, helping them enhance their management approaches.

The Cultural Landscape of the Slavic Countries

In terms of cultural dimensions conceptualized through the work of Hofstede et al. (2008) and with the index scores available through Hofstede Insights (2023), Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia score the highest on the Power Distance (PDI) with a score of 90, implicating a strong acceptance of hierarchical structures, while the Czech Republic exhibits the lowest score (57). Regarding Individualism (IDV), Poland (60) and the Czech Republic (58) emerge as the most individualistic countries, while the South Slav countries are mainly inclined toward Collectivism. Poland (64) and the Czech Republic (57) score high on Masculinity (MAS), emphasizing competition, performance, and success, while South Slav countries are prone toward feminine values. The majority of countries in our sample exhibit high scores on Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with the highest obtained scores in Russia (95), and the lowest in the Czech Republic (74) and Croatia (80). Regarding Long-Term Orientation (LTO), Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Czech Republic (70) are the most long-term oriented, while Poland leans towards Short-Term Orientation (38). In terms of Indulgence (IVR), all seven countries tend to be restrained, even though the highest score for Indulgence is measured in Bosnia and Herzegovina (44). Finally, Monumentalism (MON) index scores are reported only for the Czech Republic, Poland, and Russia (Minkov et al., 2018). The Czech Republic and Poland, with flexibility scores of 7 and 21, respectively, exhibit the highest monolithic orientation, emphasizing that their identity should remain unchanging, anchored in strong values, beliefs, and norms (Minkov, 2013). With a Monumentalism score of 58, Russia indicates the ability to adapt to evolving circumstances (Minkov, 2013).

Leadership Styles and Behaviors Across Slavic Countries

When observing South Slavs, both transactional and transformational leadership styles (Skopak & Hadžiahmetović, 2022), as well as participative leadership (Bogdanić, 2012) are present in Bosnia and Herzegovina. North Macedonia, in turn, exhibits autocratic leadership (Bojadjiev et al., 2015), with a recent shift toward more democratic approaches and more staff involvement in decision-making (Bojadjiev et al., 2019). Croatia favors democratic leadership (Miloza, 2018), but this preference exhibits variations influenced by organizational factors, such as organization size, ownership type, and industry (Udovčić et al., 2014). In Serbia, both democratic and autocratic leadership styles are present, with an inclination toward democratic leadership (Mitrovic et al., 2011).

West Slav countries like the Czech Republic and Poland, classified as post-transition (Bluhm et al., 2014), often exhibit a paternalistic leadership style (Farh & Bor-Shiuan, 2000). Within the Czech Republic, authoritative leadership prevails, particularly within small and medium-sized enterprises (Dedinova, 2015). Similarly, an adherence to hierarchical structures is still observed in Poland, leading to a preference for authoritative leadership (Haromszeki & Jarco, 2015). However, studies indicate a shift towards granting employees more autonomy in their respective fields (Wilczewski et al., 2018).

According to Levene and Higgs (2018), Russians are accustomed to powerful leaders who delegate little power and centralize authority. These preferences can be attributed to a combination of high Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, leading to the establishment of firm, formal, and centralized bureaucratic structures (Bollinger, 1994).

In addition, in the last several decades, the Slavic countries have undergone an economic transition, which in most cases was also coupled with identity transition and fraught with difficulties related to identity transformation, state-building, uneven economic development, and political difficulties (Kuzio, 2001). These factors underscore the need for additional exploration of leadership behaviors in respective cultural contexts.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

This study relies on the culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004), which posits that societal culture frames followers’ perceptions and attitudes toward preferred leadership behavior. The proposed theory encompasses the nature of the leader-follower relationship and the cultural context within which organizational activities transpire. This study observes how leadership behavior is culturally contingent, focusing on societal culture since it is a significant situational factor influencing leadership behavior (Furu, 2012).

Van Emmerik et al. (2008) argue that cultural backgrounds induce different leadership behaviors manifested through the different use of power, supervision, and authority. Moreover, Littrell et al. (2013) discuss the congruency between leader behavior and follower values, emphasizing how their compatibility results in more effective followers’ performance than when this congruency is omitted. Additionally, different leader behaviors across countries with a particular focus on followers' perspectives in the mutual interaction between leaders and followers were emphasized within the literature (e.g., Ljubica et al., 2022). The lack of comprehensive cross-cultural studies on leadership behaviors within the observed countries suggests further research (e.g., Dogar, 2021). Considering the aim of the study, differences in cultural and leadership preferences across observed countries, we propose a hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

There is a significant relationship between cultural dimensions and preferred leadership behaviors.

By testing this hypothesis, without predicting the direction of the relationship, we strive to uncover both shared patterns and unique behaviors among the observed countries, providing insights for managers.

Data and Method

Data were collected from at least two regions within each of the seven Slavic countries. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire version XII (LBDQXII - Stogdill, 1963) and the Value Survey Module 2008 (VSM08 - Hofstede et al., 2008) were employed as measurement instruments. The final sample comprised 2542 respondents. Gender distribution in the sample was nearly even, with a slightly higher representation of females at 55.1%. More details on the socio-demographic specifics of the sample are presented in Table S1 (in the supplemental file). This sample size is well-suited for the relational analysis which represents the current study’s pillar. Details related to the content, validation, and translation of the measurement instruments, as well as data collection and analyses for this research, are provided in this Special Issue’s Editorial (Ljubica & Littrell).

Results

Table S2 (in the supplemental file) displays the correlation matrix for cultural and leadership behavior dimensions for the seven Slavic countries, including European and Siberian Russia. The table exclusively shows statistically significant Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The findings revealed predominantly correlation coefficients of weak intensity (r ≤ .300). A few exceptions were found in the European Russia and the Czech Republic samples, where moderate correlations exceeding .300 were observed. Specifically, in the region of European Russia, there were positive correlations between Power Distance and Persuasiveness (r = .305) and Role Assumption (r = .326). Also, in the same region, a negative moderate correlation was found between Monumentalism and Persuasiveness (r = −.367). Finally, a positive moderate correlation was found between Indulgence and Consideration (r = .334) in the Czech Republic.

Consistent relationships, both in direction and strength, were found across countries and regions. For instance, a positive relationship between Power Distance and Initiation of Structure and Representation was observed. Also, positive associations were found between Individualism and Demand Reconciliation, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Role Assumption, and Consideration. Moreover, Individualism displayed negative correlations with Production Emphasis across several countries. The cultural dimension of Masculinity was consistent across countries and regions with Role Assumption, Demand Reconciliation, Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, Consideration, Integration, and Superior Orientation since all observed relationships were positive. The cultural dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance was negatively related to Role Assumption, Integration, and Tolerance of Freedom across the countries. For the Long-Term Orientation, the only consistent link was found with Production Emphasis in two countries/regions. As the cultural dimension with the highest number of relationships with leadership behaviors, Indulgence exhibited positive correlations with Integration, Representation, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Predictive Accuracy, Initiation of Structure, and Superior Orientation. Finally, consistent patterns of relationships across countries were found between Monumentalism and Initiation of Structure, Role Assumption, Superior Orientation, Representation, Consideration, Integration, Production Emphasis, Predictive Accuracy, and Demand Reconciliation.

Besides consistent associations, the correlation analysis revealed some inconsistent results. Specifically, Power Distance showed positive relations with Integration in Croatia and European Russia but negative in the Czech Republic. Individualism positively correlated with the Initiation of Structure in Poland but showed negative correlations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Russia. Further, Masculinity was positively correlated with Predictive Accuracy in Poland but negatively in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While Uncertainty Avoidance was positively related to Demand Reconciliation in Croatia, it was negatively associated in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Czech Republic. Additionally, Uncertainty Avoidance correlated negatively with Tolerance of Uncertainty in the Czech Republic and Serbia but positively in Croatia. Furthermore, Long-Term Orientation was positively related to Demand Reconciliation in Croatia and negatively in the Czech Republic and Poland. While Indulgence was positively linked to Demand Reconciliation in Croatia and North Macedonia, this correlation was negative in the Czech Republic. Finally, Monumentalism exhibited positive correlations with Persuasiveness in Croatia, the Czech Republic, North Macedonia, and Serbia and negative correlations in European Russia.

Results also revealed the absence of significant correlations between specific cultural dimensions and leadership behaviors in several countries and regions. For instance, Power Distance exhibited no significant correlations with any leadership behavior in Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Siberian Russia, while Individualism showed no correlations in Serbia and Siberian Russia. Next, Masculinity was not associated with any leadership behavior in North Macedonia and European Russia, and Uncertainty Avoidance exhibited no correlations in Poland and both Russian regions. Moreover, no correlations were found for Long-Term Orientation in North Macedonia and Siberian Russia, Indulgence in European Russia, and Monumentalism in Siberian Russia.

Discussion

The study uncovered significant correlations between cultural value dimensions and leadership behavior preferences across diverse Slavic countries, supporting Hypothesis 1. The obtained results, supported by substantial sample sizes, align with established research findings (Ljubica et al., 2022). By observing relationships between societal cultures and preferred leadership behaviors, this study highlights commonalities in Slavic countries and adds to the culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004). Precisely, the study examines leadership behaviors from followers’ perspectives and explains how predominant cultural context reflects on the chosen behavior of a leader.

Our results challenge the dominance of Individualism as the primary explanatory dimension in cross-cultural research (Luo et al., 2014). By revealing the greatest numbers of links between cultural dimensions of Indulgence and Monumentalism with leadership behaviors, we advocate for an expanded consideration of cultural dimensions in cross-cultural comparisons, especially given that recent cultural models point to the high explanatory power of other dimensions besides Individualism, for example, Monumentalism (e.g., Minkov, 2018).

Consistency in relationships, in terms of direction and strength, between cultural dimensions and preferred leadership behaviors suggests the generalizability of the results obtained across observed countries and regions and enhances leaders’ decisions regarding preferred behavior during their interaction with followers. Moreover, as Littrell et al. (2013) suggest, knowing followers’ cultural values empowers leader-follower congruency and improves followers’ outcomes.

Next, the findings reveal inconsistent relationships between cultural dimensions and leadership behaviors, implying broader context-dependent patterns of observed relationships. Specifically, a more thorough examination of some inconsistent patterns reveals how the observed inconsistency might be multi-layered. For instance, Uncertainty Avoidance correlated negatively with the Tolerance of Uncertainty in the Czech Republic but positively in Croatia, calling for an explanation, given that the two countries score similarly on this dimension.

Additionally, the study revealed that Croatia and the Czech Republic are the only Slavic countries from the observed sample in which all seven cultural dimensions were related to some of the preferred leadership behaviors. The absence of consistent relationships between cultural dimensions and leadership preferences in different countries highlights the multifaceted nature of human nature, indicating that factors beyond culture also impact leadership behaviors (Ly, 2020). Finally, this study contributes to both scholars and practice by providing comprehensive insight into cultural and leadership behavior relations. Moreover, it calls for additional investigations of all cultural values embedded within societies and their reflections on leadership behaviors in business organizations.

Limitations, Future Research Directions and Conclusions

The use of self-reported assessments of leadership behaviors may not fully capture the complexity of leadership practices, which is recognized as the study’s limitations. Hence, future research could benefit from assessments from both leaders and followers. Also, future studies might integrate control variables such as sector, industry, and organizational type to enhance the contextual relevance of findings. This exploration could shed light on whether followers’ preferred leader behavior differs across diverse industries or is influenced by specific organizational settings. Finally, testing alternative cultural models could offer valuable insights to the field as the relevance of such models has been demonstrated in other cultural contexts (e.g., Shi et al., 2023).

By comprehending the cultural basis of leadership preferences, insights from the study can refine leadership strategies, improve intercultural communication, and enhance leadership effectiveness. Theoretically, this study enriches the follower-centric approach in cross-cultural leadership by underscoring the significance of incorporating cultural dimensions into leadership research.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Culture and Preferred Leadership Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Slavic Nations

Supplemental Material for Culture and Preferred Leadership Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Slavic Nations by Amra Kožo, Ivana Bulog, Michał Wilczewski, Ana Tomovska Misoska, Pavlína Honsová, and Ivona Mileva in Cross-Cultural Research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Amra Kozo

Ivana Bulog

Ana Tomovska Misoska

Ivona Mileva

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Amra Kožo is an Associate Professor at the University of Sarajevo, School of Economics and Business, Bosnia and Herzegovina. She obtained her PhD degree from Marmara University (Istanbul, Turkiye). Her primary research interests include organizational behavior and cultural studies. She is engaged as a researcher on various domestic and international projects. Some of her current projects are related to sustainability competencies in higher education, where she participates as a team member, and hidden champions in rising economies, where she contributes as a team leader. For her scientific work, Amra obtained a reward from the University of Sarajevo (2021).

Ivana Bulog is a Full professor in the Department of Management at the Faculty of Economics, Business, and Tourism at the University of Split. Her scientific and professional interests encompass leadership, managerial decision-making, managerial skills, household decision-making, and financial literacy among women and entrepreneurs. She has been an active researcher in several national and international scientific and professional projects related to the broader context of management. Ivana has authored numerous scientific papers in her research fields, both independently and collaboratively, which have been published in reputable scientific publications. Her contributions to science and teaching have been recognized with various honors and awards.

Dr. Michał Wilczewski is a University Professor at the University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw. He has led two post-doc projects at Copenhagen Business School (2016–2017) and the University of Bologna (2020–2021). His research interests encompass language, communication, and the experiences of business expats, international students, and missionaries. He received the 2017 EFMD and CARLSBERG Foundation Best Paper Award from the Research Group on Management & Language (GEM&L), The 2022 Global Forum Best Paper Award from the Academy of Management (AOM), and The 2022 Polish Prime Minister’s Prize for his book Intercultural Experience in Narrative (2019, John Benjamins).

Ana Tomovska Misoska is a Professor and Head of Management Department at the School of Business Economics and Management at University American College Skopje. She obtained her Phd from Queen’s University Belfast. She has been involved in a number of research projects in Northern Ireland as well as the Republic of North Macedonia and has a number of international publications. She works intensively in exploring identity, values, leadership, organizational culture and organizational alignment and is a co-holder of the only social science patent in the country for a procedure for measuring organizational alignment Vox Organizationis.

Pavlína Honsová, PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Managerial Psychology and Sociology within the Faculty of Business Administration at the Prague University of Economics and Business. She holds a Master’s degree in Psychology from Charles University, Prague, and a PhD in Management from the Prague University of Economics and Business. Her research primarily focuses on coaching and other workplace interventions, job meaningfulness, and leadership development.

Ivona Mileva, PhD Currently serving as a Member of the University Senate and Assistant Professor at the University American College Skopje in North Macedonia, Ivona Mileva, PhD brings almost a decade of experience in academia. With expertise in management and organizational behavior, she has held various roles including Head of Business Administration and Economics Department and Chief Academic Officer. She is also dedicated to continuous learning, holding certificates from esteemed institutions. Her research, focusing on management and organizational behavior, is widely published, contributing significantly to her field.

References

Bluhm

Martens

Trappmann

(2014). Business leaders and new varieties of capitalism in post-communist Europe. Routledge.

Bogdanić

(2012). Expectations of participative leadership behaviour in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness (JEMC), 2(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.5937/jemc1202064b

Bojadjiev

Hristova

Mileva

(2019). Leadership styles in small and medium sized business: Evidence from Macedonian textile SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 6(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5296/jebi.v6i2.15266

Bojadjiev

Kostovski

Budlioska

(2015). Leadership styles in companies from Republic of Macedonia. Economic Development, 17(3), 211–222.

Bollinger

(1994). The four cornerstones and three pillars in the “House of Russia” management system. The Journal of Management Development, 13(2), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719410050264

Crede

Jong

Harms

(2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0506

Dedinova

(2015). Leadership and management styles of managers in the Czech Republic and Austria. The 9th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, 10–12 September, 2015.

Dogar

(2021). A cultural perspective to leadership practices in Balkans. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 23(23), 110–136. https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2021.23.07

Farh

L. J.-L.

Bor-Shiuan

(2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Li

J. T.

Tsui

A. S.

Weldon

(Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84–127). Macmillan.

10.

Furu

(2012). Culturally contingent leadership behaviour: An analysis of leadership as characterized by Andrea Camilleri’s Inspector Montalbano. Leadership, 8(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012441872

11.

Gill

Negrov

(2021). Perspectives on leadership development in Post-Soviet Eurasia. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 21(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958211051551

12.

Haromszeki

Jarco

(2015). Expected leadership competences in the labour market in alumni’s career paths. A study in Poland and other CEE countries. Journal of Intercultural Management, 7(4), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/joim-2015-0029

13.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

Vinken

(2008). Values survey module 2008. https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/vsm-08/

14.

Hofstede Insights . (2023). Country comparison tool. Compare different countries. 6-D model. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/

15.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Sully de Luque

(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

16.

Kuzio

(2001). Transition in post communist states: Triple or quadruple. Politics, 21(3), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00148

17.

Lee

Scandura

T. A.

Sharif

M. M.

(2014). Cultures have consequences: A configural approach to leadership across two cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 692–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.03.003

18.

Levene

Higgs

(2018). Leadership and change implementation in a Russian context. Journal of General Management, 44(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307018780406

19.

Littrell

R. F.

Serra Yurtkoru

Kepir Sinangil

Durmuş

Katrinli

Gulem Atabay

Günay

Güneri Çangarli

(2013). Explicit leader behaviour preferences: Turkish and cross-national sample comparisons. The Journal of Management Development, 32(6), 606–628. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2013-0054

20.

Ljubica

Littrell

R. F.

Warner-Søderholm

Minelgaite

(2022). Empower me or not? Influence of societal culture. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 29(1), 114–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-05-2021-0091

21.

Luo

Shi

(2014). The effects of individualism–collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM information. International Journal of Information Management, 34(4), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2014.04.001

22.

N. B.

(2020). Cultural influences on leadership: Western-dominated leadership and non-Western conceptualizations of leadership. Sociology and Anthropology, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2020.080101

23.

Miloza

(2018). Analysis of the leadership style in relation to the characteristics of Croatian enterprises. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 16(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.16.2.5

24.

Minkov

(2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world’s modern societies and their cultures (with contributions by Geert Hofstede). Sage.

25.

Minkov

Bond

M. H.

Dutt

Schachner

Morales

Sanchez

Jandosova

Khassenbekov

Mudd

(2018). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117727488

26.

Mitrovic

Milisavljevic

Costic

Lekovic

Grubic-Nesic

Ivanisevic

(2011). Changes in leadership styles in a transitional economy: A Serbian case study. African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3563–3569. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1433

27.

Poniedziałek

(2023). Florian Znaniecki’s culturalistic sociology of nation. Nationalities Papers, 51(3), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1017/NPS.2022.49

28.

Shi

Song

Zhou

(2023). The effect of team cultural tightness and transformational leadership on employee creative behavior: A cross-level moderated mediation model. PsyCh Journal, 12(5), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/PCHJ.678

29.

Skopak

Hadžiahmetović

(2022). The impact of transformational and transactional leadership style on employee job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 8(3), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.8.10001-3

30.

Sokolova

Zubr

Cierniak-Emerych

Dziuba

S. T.

(2018). The level of organizational culture as a constant challenge for company management – an empirical research in the Czech Republic and Poland. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 22(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.15240/TUL/001/2019-1-010

31.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-form XII: An experimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University.

32.

Udovčić

Požega

Ž.

Crnković

(2014). Analysis of leadership styles in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik: Review of Contemporary Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues, 27(1), 71–80.

33.

van Emmerik

I. H.

Euwema

M. C.

Wendt

(2008). Leadership behaviors around the world: The relative importance of gender versus cultural background. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808096671

34.

Wilczewski

Søderberg

A.-M.

Gut

(2018). Intercultural communication within a Chinese subsidiary of a Western MNC: Expatriate perspectives on language and communication issues. Multilingua, 37(6), 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0095

35.

Yurtkoru

E. S.

Ekmekçi

A. K.

(2011). Actual and ideal leadership behavior shift within the last five years. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1451–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.030

36.

Zhang

Guo

Zhang

Liu

Newman

(2022). Antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership across culture: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(4), 1399–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09762-0

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB