Abstract
This Special Issue is an installment of the series of studies carried out by the Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons ([https://crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/](https://crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/)), an international voluntary association of researchers, students and practitioners interested in the global study of culture and leadership. This Consortium investigates the relationships among preferred leader behavior dimensions and societal cultural values of employed businesspeople across the globe, with the intent of improving managerial leadership practice in businesses.
Keywords
Purpose
This Special Issue is an installment of the series of studies carried out by the Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons (https://crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/), an international voluntary association of researchers, students and practitioners interested in the global study of culture and leadership. This Consortium investigates the relationships among preferred leader behavior dimensions and societal cultural values of employed businesspeople across the globe, with the intent of improving managerial leadership practice in businesses.
Since Geert Hofstede introduced his model of national culture to the international business arena in the nineteen-eighties, research on culturally contingent leadership has proliferated into a well-developed corpus of literature. This literature evolved from Western-centrism or dominance in volume and intercession for the universal applicability of findings yielded by research conducted in the global West (Western Europe, the Anglo Cluster, the US and Canada) towards the West-East polarization, with China and South-East Asian countries hosting most of the research performed in the global East. Facilitating the plurality of cultural and leadership theories, cross-cultural management and leadership research provides us with important knowledge about the relationships between various conceptualizations of societal culture and implicit leader and leader-related employee traits and views, and explicit leader styles and behaviors (for a review see amongst many: Den Hartog & de Hoogh, 2024; Kirkman et al., 2017). Adding to the universal applicability arguments of the Western-originated findings, the major flaws of this research were selectivity in national cultural values, and inconsistencies in findings due to varying methodological and conceptual approaches to, both, culture and leadership (Ljubica et al., 2022). The West-East polarization, however, is still a major focus, and not much attention has been given to cross-cultural leadership elsewhere in the world.
Due to the cultural, historical and political reasons beyond the scope of this Special Issue and, interestingly, despite the geographical position between and, in some instances, overlapping the West and the East, the Slavic nations and tribes (see Kamusella, 2016, for details regarding the Slavic socio-cultural anthropology) represent a black box of cross-cultural management and leadership research. Indeed, this research in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine (Eastern Slavs); Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia (Western Slavs); Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and Serbia (Southern Slavs) is sparse compared to the body of knowledge developed in the global West and East. However, though more sparse, sporadic and modest in, both, volume and insights, research on cross-cultural leadership in Slavic nations replicated that in the West and the East. Hence, the major part thereof was relational, investigating the direct or moderating influences of national culture to a narrow set of leadership styles and job and personal outcomes (e.g. Podrug et al., 2006; Dabić et al., 2014; Kožo & Braček-Lalić, 2021; Maršić & Znidaršić, 2019). The lesser part entailed cross-country, and even more rare, intra-national or regional comparative studies of national cultural values and but a few implicit (perceptions of, attitudes towards a leader) and explicit (leader behaviors, styles) aspects of leadership (e.g. Costigan et al., 2011; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Rajh, et al., 2016; Bojadjiev et al., 2019). As in the more developed “Western” literature, researchers generally used Hofstede´s model of culture and often did so selectively, using less than the full set of the model’s societal culture value dimensions, leadership styles and behaviors, while neglecting or completely omitting other. In addition, the findings of this research mostly confirmed prior findings provided by Hofstede and other similar research that ventured, to a certain extent at least, into the Slavic societies (e.g. Javidan et al., 2006; Costigan et al., 2011; Podrug et al., 2014; Mączyński, & Sułkowski, 2017). Adding to the conceptual and methodological flaws mirroring those in the West and East, both streams often used mixed samples of students and business people across a mixture of seemingly randomly selected Slavic and non-Slavic countries. Thus, in the absence of a developed research stream, the literature on cross-cultural leadership in Slavic nations lacks systemization and consistency, hindering our understanding thereof. The main purpose of this Special Issue, therefore, is to ameliorate some of these flaws.
In doing so, this Special Issue represents a pioneering systematic research collection that enhances the knowledge and understanding and contributes to, both, theoretical support and empirical findings relating to culture, leadership and the intersection of the two across and within Slavic tribes, nations and their culture areas. It informs international business academics and professionals, the public and public leaders and administrators on effective and socio-culturally sustainable management and leadership practices. It will motivate future replication and other novel research endeavors, further contributing to, and mainstreaming cross-cultural leadership research and facilitating businesses' national and international development in Slavic nations and elsewhere. It is our hope that the insights we deliver in this Special Issue aid the understanding and prevention of the disrupting and tragic turmoil plaguing these areas both historically and recently.
Theoretical Background
In this Special Issue, we employ theoretical axes and data from a previously mentioned global longitudinal research project (discussed in detail in Littrell, 2013). The project and the Special Issue are based on culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004) which posits that societal culture shapes followers’ attitudes about leaders´ practices and behaviors, hence, the way they interpret and evaluate such behaviors for compatibility with what they consider desirable and effective. The more consistent the perceived practice or behavior of the leader is with such employee attitudes, the more positive the employee response. Conversely, if cultural values and norms of employees in a society are incongruent with perceived leader behaviors and practices, employees may become dissatisfied with (those aspects of) their jobs and unmotivated to display expected behaviors and performance (House et al., 2004). The central argument of the theory is, therefore, that managerial leadership in business is influenced by value priorities in a specific culture. In this Special Issue we, thus, examine these values, preferences and influences, as well as their similarities and differences. We, thus, pose the following research questions:
What are the cultural value priorities in Slavic societies?
What are the preferences for explicit leader behaviors in Slavic societies?
Are there consistent, significant and predictive relationships between cultural value priorities and preferred leader behavior priorities in Slavic societies?
What are the similarities and differences in these values, preferences and relationships within and across Slavic societies?
Methodology
Sampling and Data Collection
In this Special Issue, we use systematic random quota sampling selecting from finite populations, in this case, employed businesspeople from various country and sub-country culture areas of the participating countries. Our country co-investigators collected the data using online, mostly Google Forms, surveys. To tackle the common method and common source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2024) the data in all the participating countries was collected in 2022 and 2023 via several (minimally two) tranches in different points of time (separated by a minimum of 4 weeks, data collection intervals vary across the participating authorial teams). After the data had been collected, a cleaning protocol was administered whereby we removed malicious and datasets with fewer than eighty percent of the items completed in both surveys. The overall “All Slavic” sample in this Special Issue consists of 2542 participants from seven Slavic countries belonging to all three Slavic tribes. Size and demographic specifics of individual country samples are detailed in each of the single-country manuscripts, the overall sample specifics are presented in the comparative multi-country manuscripts - see “Design of the Special Issue” section in this Editorial. We believe the samples are large and diverse enough for us to assume they are a sufficiently broad sample of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs in the societies participating in the Special Issue.
Research Instruments
In this Special Issue, we adopt a positivist and quantitative methodological approach, employing previously developed, reliable and validated survey instruments to assess subjects’ opinions, attitudes, and beliefs concerning leader behaviors and cultural values. These are Hofstede’s Value Survey Module 2008 (VSM08; Hofstede et al., 2008), and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire version XII (LBDQXII; Stogdill, 1963, 1974) for leader behavior dimensions. To achieve cross-cultural equivalence, in translations of both surveys we employed the Brislin model for instrument translation (Brislin, 1970; Jones et al., 2001). First, a minimum of two country co-investigators independently translated the surveys and subsequently administered pilot studies to a smaller number of participants (20–50) for discussion of the face validity of the items. Data obtained were subjected to standard descriptive and inferential parametric statistical tests to facilitate making inferences from the analyses. If needed, focus groups were carried out with the test sample, revising items to achieve equivalence between the original (English) and local language (see Littrell et al., 2018 for further details of the survey validation).
Societal Culture
To operationalize national societal culture, we selected Hofstede’s theory and adopted his Values Survey Module 2008 (the full survey in English language can be accessed at https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/vsm-08/; for details regarding its development and validation, and the definitions, descriptions and operationalization of cultural value dimensions see: Hofstede et al., 2008). VSM08 is conceptually consistent with the instrument we utilized to operationalize employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors, as in personal preferences of people in a society related to different aspects of life. VSM08 dimension scores, furthermore, have been shown to be adequate for meaningful analysis in terms of geographical regions within a country and across countries (Hofstede et al., 2008; Minkov et al., 2023), which is important for this Special Issue. Hofstede field survey is also more parsimonious compared to other functionalist cultural models (e.g. GLOBE), facilitating translation and data collection. There have been critiques to Hofstede´s model (e.g. Javidan et al., 2006; McSweeney, 2002), however, the cross- and intra-national analyses developed its rigorous theoretical concepts from the global VSM database files, and the constructs have both an empirical foundation and a theoretical (or even philosophical) rationale (Hofstede, 2006; Minkov & Kaasa, 2021).
We use raw, un-centered scores rather than 0–100 centered scores for Hofstede´s cultural value dimensions. The 0–100 centering leads to a loss of information about the true variation within and across countries as it “forces” data obtain from samples in various research polygons (countries, country clusters or tribes, culture areas or regions) into relative, average positions rather than providing absolute values. Consequently, standardized, centered scores may not accurately represent the cultural values and may obscure differences within and between countries (Taras et al., 2009). By stretching and standardizing the scores, Hofstede made between-country comparisons easier, but lost precision. The raw scores maintain the proper distances between country scores, allowing for better understanding of the cultural dimensions in their original units of measurement. Hence, using the raw, un-centered scores for cultural value dimensions preserves more information about variation across countries and avoids methodological issues with forced centering procedures (Taras et al., 2009).
Employee Preferences for Explicit Leader Behaviors
To assess employee opinions, attitudes and beliefs relating to preferences for explicit leader behaviors we employ the LBDQXII. The LBDQXII survey assessing twelve leader behavior dimensions (in English language) can be obtained at: https://fisher.osu.edu/centers-partnerships/leadership/leader-behavior-description-questionnaire-lbdq. Descriptions of each of the leader behavior dimensions are listed below. For details regarding the operationalization of these dimensions see: Stogdill (1963). • Representation: measures to what degree the manager speaks as the representative of the group. • Demand Reconciliation: reflects how well the manager reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system. • Tolerance of Uncertainty: depicts to what extent the manager is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or getting upset. • Persuasiveness: measures to what extent the manager uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions. • Initiation of Structure: measures to what degree the manager clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected. • Tolerance of Freedom: reflects to what extent the manager allows followers scope for initiative, decision and action. • Role Assumption: measures to what degree the manager exercises actively the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. • Consideration: depicts to what extent the manager regards the comfort, well-being, status and contributions of followers. • Production Emphasis: measures to what degree the manager applies pressure for productive output. • Predictive Accuracy: measures to what extent the manager exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately. • Integration: reflects to what degree the manager maintains a closely-knit organization; resolves inter-member conflicts. • Superior Orientation: measures to what extent the manager maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status.
Each leader behavior dimension in composed of either five or ten items. These dimensions are necessarily defined by their component items and represent a rather complex pattern of behaviors, brief description of which are displayed in the table above. The LBDQXII is used for obtaining descriptions of a supervisor by the group members whom s/he supervises. It can be used to describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any type of group or organization, provided the followers have had an opportunity to observe the leader in action as a leader of their group. The survey consists of 100 items with Likert type response categories reflecting how frequently does the participant believe the leader should engage in the behavior described by the item, ranging from 1 (Always) to five (Never). Some items are reversed scored.
The LBDQXII has more than 60 years of continuous, extensive use, and a considerable amount of research supports its test-retest reliability, construct validity and use in cross-cultural settings with accepted reliability and validity. For details related to the research and development of LBDQXII, see: Stogdill (1963); 1974; Littrell (2013); Littrell et al. (2018).
Data Analyses
We have selected multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) with Games-Howell post-hoc analyses to compare scores on Hofstede’s cultural values and the LBDQXII leader behavior dimensions, across country and sub-country regions. These values and behavioral dimensions represent multiple theoretically related dependent variables. MANOVA is appropriate when assessing such variables and group differences simultaneously, controlling for inflated Type 1 error that would occur with multiple analyses of variances (ANOVAs; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Games-Howell post-hoc tests are adequate analytical technique following a significant MANOVA and unequal sample sizes across groups, often the case in comparison studies, as it does not assume equal variances and sample sizes, unlike other post-hoc tests (Field, 2013).
For our investigation of the relationships between dimension scores from Hofstede’s VSM08 and the Ohio State LBDQXII within countries and sub-country regions, we employ Pearson Correlations. Hofstede’s VSM08 cultural value dimensions and the Ohio State LBDQXII leader behavior dimensions produce continuous numerical scores that represent the degree to which individuals or cultures exhibit those traits. Pearson product-moment correlation is an appropriate statistical analysis when assessing the relationship between such variables because the data meet the assumptions of continuous variables, related pairs of observations, and a linear relationship (Howell, 2017). By computing Pearson correlations, we can statistically test whether cultural values cultural values influence preferred leadership styles, which aligns well with the purpose of this Special Issue.
Design (Layout)
In responding to the stated research questions, this Special Issue consists of ten articles reporting on seven single-country and three multi-country studies. Research Teams from seven Slavic countries belonging to all three Slavic tribes, namely: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia and Serbia (Southern Slavs), Czech Republic and Poland (Western Slavs), and Russia (Eastern Slavs), are examining the relationships between societal cultural value dimensions and employee preferences for explicit leader behavior dimensions. Research Teams investigate these relationships on the national, but also intra-national or regional level, comparing them between different regions of their respective countries.
In addition, mixed research teams consisting of researchers from all participating countries, present three comparative multi-country studies entailing all the participating tribes, countries and their regions, examining differences and similarities between (1) societal culture value dimensions, (2) preferences for explicit leader behaviors and (3) the relationships between the two. In these studies, authors compare national and sub-national or regional scores for cultural value and leader behavior dimensions such that regional scores are included in the comparisons for countries in which significant intra-national differences in these dimensions were found, and aggregate country scores for countries in which such differences were not identified, within single-country studies.
All manuscripts in this Special Issue are limited to a length of ten pages, including references, and have supplemental files (one for each manuscript) with additional information (tables, figures etc.) related to their studies. Theoretical and methodological commonalities shared by articles participating in this Special Issue are stated in this Editorial, and the authors explicitly refer to the Editorial and these commonalities in their articles. Specificities relating to each study have been articulated in the articles.
Footnotes
Author Contributions
Romie Frederick Littrell has contributed to this Editorial within the framework of a subsidy granted to the National Research University - Higher School of Economics, Moscow, by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.
Acknowledgments
In this Special Issue we utilized double blind peer-review policy of the Cross-Cultural Research journal and the Sage Publishing company. All the participating articles have successfully passed through this process. Hence, we would like to extend our deepest and most sincere gratitude to the ten anonymous reviewers from Universities around the globe who have participated in this Special Issue with their expert reviews. Without them, this Issue would not be possible. Our gratitude extends onto the Editorial Board of the Cross-Cultural Research journal, led by Dr. Carol Ember of the Human Relations Area Files at Yale University (USA). Dr. Ember´s guidance has been instrumental in developing and publishing this Special Issue. We also devote a special thank you to Mrs. Patricia (Trish) Andreucci who, together with prof. Ember, facilitated and supported our work on this project. Finally, we would also like to thank all the “invisible” people, our colleagues, families and friends who encouraged us to embark and persevere through this endeavor. Thank all of you from our hearts.
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.
Data Availability Statement
The data collected for this special issue is the property of the authors of the articles and the Center for Cross Cultural Comparisons. If you would like access, please request through the Editors of the Special Issue, Dr. Jasenko Ljubica, email: