Czech Leadership Culture: Determinants of Preferred Leader Behaviour

Introduction

The leadership culture in the Czech Republic has been shaped by various factors. Historically, the Czech Lands, located in the heart of Central Europe, has been a cultural “melting pot” with a strong connection to Germany and Austria as Czechs spent under the rule of Habsburg´s monarchs almost 400 years from 1526 to 1918 (Pánek & Tůma, 2018). In 1918, following the end of the First World War, Czechoslovakia declared its independence, uniting the historical regions of Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia, and Slovakia, which also included significant German and Jewish minority populations.

This study explores the leadership culture in the two key historical regions Bohemia and Moravia, focusing on how their differences impact leadership styles. Moravia, with its rural background, has maintained traditional ethnographic customs such as the Ride of the Kings (classified as an UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage), while Bohemia has experienced significant economic changes due to extensive industrialization and urbanization (Vaishar & Zapletalová, 2016). However, in examining the historical roots of Czech leadership and its regional distinctions, one cannot also ignore the pivotal contribution of Tomas Bata, a renowned entrepreneur in the Czech footwear industry since 1894 in Moravia. His approach to leadership, notably paternalistic, was distinguished by a commitment to innovation, customer focus, and the welfare and development of his employees (Edwards & Lawrence, 2000). The 1948 administrative reform, which ignored the historical boundary between these regions, along with the socialist era’s centrally controlled economies, promoted collectivism and aimed to reduce regional disparities (Taborsky, 2015). Despite these changes, Bohemia and Moravia have continued to exist as distinct cultural units (Vaishar & Zapletalová, 2016).

The connection between leadership preferences and cultural factors was supported by the works of several authors, most of them building on the work of Geert Hofstede (Hofstede et al., 2010; Littrell & Valentin, 2005; Rattrie et al., 2020) and the cultural dimensions his work builds on. Despite certain criticism (Jackson, 2020), this remains one of the most used tools for understanding and comparing cultures. At the same time, his work was primarily used in cross-national comparisons of cultures (GLOBE Project, n.d). Our research aims to explore two main areas. Firstly, we investigate whether cultural differences, as characterized by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions through the Value Survey Module 2008 (hereafter referred to as VSM08), can explain variations in leadership preferences, which are assessed using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, version XII (hereafter referred to as the LBDQXII questionnaire). Secondly, we examine the impact of other potential factors that may account for these differences.

The Leadership Context of the Czech Republic

The primary aim of the Czech Republic’s economic transformation following the collapse of the socialist regime in 1989 was to achieve economic convergence with the European Union, with Germany as its principal economic partner. Since joining the EU in 2004, the Czech Republic has experienced a significant level of integration within the European framework (Krpec & Hodulák, 2019).

The longitudinal study of Auer-Rizzi and Reber (2013) conducted in 1991–2011 demonstrated the inertia of approaches to leadership and the more autocratic than participative approach of Czech industry leaders. This finding finds support in a comparative study conducted by Suutari and Riusala (2001) who compared the behaviors of Central European managers (Czech, Polish, and Hungarian) with those of Finnish managers. Czech managers showed less consideration for their subordinates and provided them with less autonomy and information than their Finish counterparts. Nonetheless, some of them used a paternalistic approach when subordinates felt like a part of the family. Czech managers were found to be less inclined to encourage interactions and group work compared to their Finnish counterparts. In the Czech case, rewards were not based on performance but benefits were given to everyone. Czech managers were less apt to show recognition, but they were more active in initiating structure. A change in the approach of Czech managers is demonstrated by the study exploring the flexibility of managers’ leadership style utilizing the situational leadership model (Kuchynková & Králová, 2013). They revealed that Czech managers are more flexible in using different leadership styles but leadership style flexibility is significantly influenced by the management domain of leaders. The highest average flexibility scores were observed among leaders in the fields of information technology and education, while managers in the services sector exhibited the lowest average flexibility scores. The shift in approaches to leadership towards a more team-based approach and increased sharing of information is indicated by a study conducted by Kohnová et al. (2023) on agile management methods in the IT industry. Across the entire research sample (more than 1000 employees), the respondents expressed the highest levels of agreement with certain statements, notably: team performance is more important than individual (83%), employees are encouraged to look for the best ways to do work (82.2%) and open and regularly shared information in the organization (78.7%) (Kohnová et al., 2023).

Overall, these studies collectively suggest a gradual evolution in Czech leadership styles, from the historically autocratic and paternalistic approaches influenced by figures like Tomas Bata and the socialist regime, towards a more flexible, team-oriented, and information-sharing approach, particularly evident in sectors like IT and education, reflecting the Czech Republic’s ongoing integration into the broader European context and its adaptation to contemporary leadership trends.

Hypotheses

Based on the previously outlined regional distinctions, the hypotheses of this study integrate the unique socioeconomic and cultural contexts of Bohemia and Moravia within the Czech Republic. Bohemia’s industrial orientation contrasts with Moravia’s focus on traditional industries and agriculture, suggesting varied leadership styles preferences across these regions.

Hypothesis 1

Correlations between cultural value dimensions and preferences for leader behaviors will exhibit distinct results for the regions of Bohemia and Moravia.

Hypothesis 2

There are significant differences in cultural dimensions scores across two major historical regions in the Czech Republic: Bohemia and Moravia

Hypothesis 3

There are significant differences in leadership preferences between residents of Bohemia and Moravia.

Hypothesis 4

There are significant differences in leadership preferences based on gender, education level and the type of organization participants are affiliated with.

Methods and Data Analysis

A comprehensive survey instrument was developed to capture participant responses across the LBDQXII questionnaire dimensions (Littrell & Valentin, 2005), VSM08 dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2008), and demographic variables of interest, such as region of residence, age, gender, education, and type of organization. For further details on the development, validation, and translation of the research instruments or data analyses, refer to the editorial by Ljubica and Littrell in this special issue.

The data for this study were collected during the spring of 2023 through a professional data collection agency. The agency utilized a diverse recruitment strategy to ensure a representative sample of participants. The survey was administered electronically, with participants provided access via secure online platforms. Ethical guidelines and informed consent protocols aligned with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) policy were strictly adhered to during the data collection process. To test the hypotheses formulated in this study, we conducted a series of statistical analyses using the IBM SPSS Statistics software package.

We decided on the historical regions (Bohemia or Moravia) assigned to participants based on the location of the cities where they indicated spending most of their lives. Consequently, when assessing the impact of belongingness to specific historical region, we excluded those few participants who, despite being residents or citizens of the Czech Republic, might have spent a crucial part of their life elsewhere. In terms of education, we differentiate between four levels: Primary education, General secondary education, Trade/technical/vocational training, and University degree. We also consider four types of organizations the participants might be affiliated with: Non-governmental organizations, Private businesses, State-owned or predominantly state-financed enterprises and Working for multiple companies with mixed ownership. Finally, we performed correlation tests between cultural values scores and scores for leadership preferences. Given the hypothesized differences between historical regions, we performed these tests for Bohemia and Moravia separately. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to investigate the impact of categorical independent variables on the LBDQXII dimensions (region, gender, education and a type of organization). All statistical tests were conducted at a predetermined significance level of p ≤ .05, and where appropriate, post-hoc tests were employed to further explore pairwise differences when ANOVA results indicated statistical significance. To control for the significant effect of historical regions on LBDQXII dimensions while considering the influence of age as a covariate, we performed a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). All descriptive statistics and detailed data analysis results can be found in the Supplemental File (Tables S1 – S11).

Our study comprised a total of 389 participants. The sample was particularly diverse in terms of demographics and proportionately represented the Czech Republic’s main historical regions: Bohemia and Moravia. Descriptive statistics for the LBDQXII dimensions, Age and VSM08 dimensions are presented in Table S1 and Table S2, while Table S3 presents the descriptive statistics for participants’ education levels, gender, organizations they are affiliated with (for the entire sample and for each of the regions separately), and regions in the Czech Republic in which they have lived the longest. These descriptive statistics provide a preliminary understanding of the characteristics of our sample and the variables under investigation. As part of the descriptive analysis, we investigated potential correlations between cultural values and preferences for participants having spent most of their lives in Bohemia (Table S4) and Moravia (Table S5). The two tables illustrate significant differences in values and preferences correlations between the two regions.

Results and Discussion

Regarding relations between cultural values and leader behavior preferences, we found for Bohemia the most significant positive correlations between Masculinity and Representation, Persuasiveness, Role Assumption, Consideration, Integration, Superior Orientation and between Indulgence and Demand Reconciliation, Tolerance of Freedom, Consideration, Predictive Accuracy and Superior Orientation, for details see Table S4. For Moravia we identified the most significant relationships between Indulgence and Monumentalism that both correlated with Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of Freedom, Role Assumption, Consideration, Integration and Superior Orientation, see Table S5. These results support H1. It seems that in case of Bohemia, there can be still prevailing masculine stereotype in leadership and employees may prefer leaders who are strong, decisive, and assertive which corroborates findings of Auer-Rizzi and Reber (2013). On the other hand, they also need leaders who are able to create a friendly, tolerant work environment. This findings suggests that they anticipate leaders who can display flexibility in their leadership style which is consistent with results of Kuchynková and Králová (2013).

Moravian employees might prefer more paternalistic leaders to Bohemian ones as they score in the same LBDQXII dimensions for Monumentalism and Indulgence. The prevalence of paternalistic leadership style might reflect the impact of the historical figures such as Bata had on shaping regional leadership cultures. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Moravian population tends to be more religious (about 45% on average) compared to the Bohemian population (about 25% on average) (Náboženské Vyznání Obyvatelstva, n.d). These findings also find support in LBDQXII scores that revealed the strongest inclination towards the category of Representation, followed by Persuasiveness and Initiation of Structure in case of Bohemia and Production Emphasis and Superior Orientation in case of Moravia. Nonetheless, it is interesting that Production Emphasis emerged as the least preferred leader behavior for the Bohemian sample (for details see Table S1).

However, looking at cultural values across regions alone (H2), we found no differences in terms of Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Monumentalism, Collectivism, Masculinity, and Long-Term Orientation, and a slight difference in Indulgence, where Bohemia scored higher than Moravia (for more details Table S6) and thus we have to reject H2. This indicates that, when measured in terms of VSM08 scores, both regions tend to be rather culturally homogenous. The shared history under the Czechoslovak state and the influence of the socialist regime may have led to a convergence of national cultural values across these regions.

At the same time, we revealed significant differences across historical regions in almost all LBDQXII dimensions (H3), for details see Table S7, which means H3 is supported. This finding suggests that while national cultural values may be consistent across regions, the practical application of these values in leadership behaviors can vary significantly, influenced by regional socio-economic conditions and more subtle cultural nuances associated with local traditions.

In this context, we investigated other variables that might account for differences in leadership preferences (H4). First, we evaluated separately the impact of categorical variables Gender, Education and Type of Organization (Table S7). We found a relatively weak effect of gender across all dimensions except for Production Emphasis, women indicating lower values. This suggests that men and women have generally very similar preferences and expectations from leadership in terms of almost all LBDQXII dimensions. This result aligns with findings from other studies that research gender differences of expectations regarding leader behavior such as Auer-Rizzi and Reber (2013) or Miranda (2019). The different result for Production Emphasis could be connected to the fact that women are more prone to experiencing stress, and the pressure on productivity from supervisors can exacerbate their stress levels (Matud, 2004).

Statistically significant differences were observed in several LBDQXII dimensions based on education levels, for which post-hoc tests were conducted (see Table S8). Specifically, for the dimension Representation, there was a significant difference between individuals with a ‘University degree’ and those with ‘Primary education’ (p = .044), indicating that those with a university degree scored significantly higher. In the dimension Initiation of Structure, a significant difference was found between ‘University degree’ and ‘Primary education’ (p = .009), with the former scoring lower. Additionally, in the dimension, Tolerance of Freedom, ‘University degree’ showed a significant difference compared to ‘Primary education’ (p = .007), again with a lower score, suggesting less tolerance of freedom.

Individuals with tertiary education thus expect their manager to act as a spokesperson or representative for their group, and they may not require highly defined roles and structures within the organization as people with primary education need. With more complex job roles, there is a strong likelihood that tertiary educated people possess greater room for initiative since they do not necessarily demand a higher threshold for tolerance of freedom. Hence, individuals with varying educational backgrounds may benefit from different leadership styles, such as a transformational approach, especially those with higher levels of education.

Next, we looked at the effects of the organization types the Czech participants were affiliated with. As Table S7 shows, we found some significance only for the Integration dimension (F = 2.836, p = .024). According to the post-hoc tests (Table S9), there is a statistically significant difference in Integration between individuals working in non-governmental organizations and those in private businesses; specifically, non-governmental organization employees have a higher mean score than private business employees (p = .016). There is also a statistically significant difference between individuals working in private businesses and those in state-owned or predominantly state-financed enterprises. Private business employees have a lower mean score (p = .000). These difference may arise because people from private businesses are typically more accustomed to competitive environments (Yang & Meyer, 2017).

Finally, we turned our attention to the impact of age. Table S10 suggests that both age and historical regions play a role in shaping leadership preferences. However, the Pillai’s Trace for age (0.113) is relatively low, indicating that age has a modest, but statistically significant, impact on the LBDQXII dimensions. At the same time, the Pillai’s Trace for historical regions (0.250) is higher than that for age, indicating that historical regions have a more substantial impact on the LBDQXII dimensions. In this context, we considered a potential different age composition among participants from the two regions. Indeed, an independent samples test revealed a statistically significant difference in age between the two regions, (t = −3.204, df = 370, p ≤ .001, see Table S11). On average, respondents from Moravia were older than those from Bohemia. The mean age difference between the two regions was approximately 5 years. For this reason, we explored interaction effects between age and region and examined whether the relationship between age and leadership preferences varies significantly between Bohemia and Moravia. We found that age has a differential impact in these two regions. For all dimensions of leadership preferences, we found insufficient evidence to suggest that the impact of age on leadership preferences differs significantly in Bohemia. On the other hand, in all these dimensions, we found a statistically significant interaction effect between age and region in Moravia, with older respondents in Moravia showing a distinct pattern in their leadership preferences. In summary, this suggests that age acts as an impactful variable on leadership preferences for older participants in particular. H4 is thus partly supported.

The potential limitations of the study may stem from the relatively small size of the sample (389 participants) and its composition. Also, while the study aims to link leadership preferences with cultural factors, the complexity of these relationships might not be fully captured due to the multifaceted nature of culture and its intersection with other variables like individual personality, organizational culture, and the broader socio-political context.

Conclusion and Implications

Our research has revealed that differences in preferred leader behaviors exist across the two regions (Bohemia and Moravia), which was also illustrated by different levels of correlations between values and preferences across the two regions. While we found significant interactions with preferences for leadership in Masculinity, Indulgence and Monumentalism, we are unable to confirm that scores for cultural values are region-specific. This insight suggests that future research aiming to more precisely gauge potential differences in values may benefit from employing more sensitive measurement tools or exploring additional variables as potential factors driving these variations. Nevertheless, investigating historical regions, we consistently found notable variations across most dimensions of the LBDQXII. A potential explanation for this variation is the age composition of our sample. Specifically, respondents from Moravia were generally older, and it was among these older respondents that age appeared to significantly influence leadership preferences. This observation suggests that the sample’s age composition may introduce a specific limitation to our study. In contrast, variables such as gender, education, or the type of organization yielded more modest results. Moreover, these findings underscore that while national cultural values may be consistent across regions, their practical application in leadership behaviors can vary significantly. Such variations are likely influenced by regional socio-economic conditions and the subtle cultural nuances rooted in local traditions, particularly among the older population.

In summary, the LBDQXII scores provide significant insights into leader behavior preferences that can help leaders to enhance their leadership effectiveness. Companies operating in Bohemia thus should foster an environment where leaders are encouraged to be adaptable, capable of creating a friendly and supportive atmosphere, while also being decisive and effectively representing their team during challenging situations, while in Moravia, a more paternalistic leadership style may be favoured due to cultural and historical influences.

Supplemental Material