A Comparison of Preferred Leader Behaviors in Slavic Countries: Three Tribes and Seven Nations

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine and compare the employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors within and across seven Slavic countries, belonging to three Slavic tribes. Our analyses of data obtained from 2542 participants revealed several patterns of similarities in volume and distribution as well as magnitude and structure of these preferences between and within the participating nations, their regions and tribes. The differences, however, are inconsistent. We contribute to the “Black Box” of cross-cultural leadership literature and hope to stimulate further research demystifying and facilitating leadership research and practice in these astonishing nations.

Keywords

preferences leader behavior Slavic nations comparison

Introduction

The study of leadership has a long and rich history, tracing back to the 6th century BC with the philosophical insights of Lao Tzu. However, it was not until the early 1930s that business leadership emerged as a distinct field of systematic scientific inquiry (Littrell, 2002). Driven by globalization and the increasing internationalization of companies, research on cross-cultural management and leadership has gained significant traction. At the heart of this growing academic interest lies the recognition that societal culture profoundly influences the effectiveness of leadership (Hofstede, 1980; Nandesh et al., 2022; Yukl, 2010). A compelling body of empirical evidence underscores the fact that the impact of various leadership styles and behaviors on individual and organizational outcomes varies across cultures (for a comprehensive review see: Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Crede et al., 2019). While the majority of this research stems from the global West (Western Europe, Northern America) and East (East and Southeast Asia, Australia), there is relatively little known about leadership in Slavic societal cultures, uniquely positioned between these two global regions. Slavic nations share a complex and complicated history marked by cultural, economic, and military tensions, coupled with the ongoing process of European integration. This interplay of factors has opened Slavic nations to global influences, necessitating a systematic investigation into effective business leadership in this culturally distinct context.

Specifically, we delve into the similarities and differences in employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors across seven Slavic countries, affiliated with three Slavic tribes (Kamusella et al., 2016): Southern Slavs (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia and Serbia), Western Slavs (Poland and Czech Republic), and Eastern Slavs (Russia). We aim to provide a systematic, and comprehensive comparative study of leadership preferences, shedding light on the “Black Box” of culturally contingent leadership in these astonishing cultures. To achieve this, we first present comprehensive literature review. Subsequently, we develop and test hypotheses, and discuss the results of data analyses.

Literature Review

Research on leadership preferences in the Slavic nations is modest in, both, volume and, due to mixed and inconclusive findings, insights. This research shows that the most practiced leadership style in Bosnia and Herzegovina is participative and consultative, autonomous and directive in Croatia (Bakotić & Bulog, 2021; Fabac et al., 2022; Kostić-Bobanović & Bobanović, 2013), while leaders in both countries nurture vigilant (exploring all options) decision-making style (Dabić et al., 2015). Research also converges, to a relatively high degree in Serbia, indicating a tendency towards exploitative, authoritative leadership style (Janićijević & Marinković, 2015; Radulovic et al., 2019). Findings in other participating Slavic nations are much more conflicting. Some research (Kostovski et al., 2015) suggests that leaders in North Macedonia are more autocratically inclined, however, other research (Bojadjiev et al., 2015; Mileva et al., 2020) indicates they utilize democratic and participative style of leadership. Supporting such notions, Drakulovski et al. (2017) and Zenku and Kotevska Dimovska (2022) argue that transformational leadership that encourages follower confidence and productivity is most effective in North Macedonia. Similarly, research on leadership in Russia branches out in two streams. One indicates that expected and accepted, hence, effective leadership style in Russia is autocratic and transactional (Balabanova et al., 2018; Elenkov, 1998; Fey et al., 2001; McCarthy et al., 2008). The other stream argues for democratic, consultative, and relationship-focused style (Ardichvili et al., 2001; Levene & Higgs, 2018).

Research on business leadership in Poland and Czech Republic is also conflicting. Some research (House et al., 2004; Sułkowski & Mączyński, 2017) demonstrated a tendency toward team-oriented and less participative leadership; however, other research (Koźmiński, 2013) argues that charisma and authority are the premier characteristics of Polish leaders. Bajcar and Babiak (2015) argue for two dominant leadership styles in Poland: transactional in domestic organizations, and participative in multinational enterprises. Research (Costigan et al., 2011; Eisenberg et al., 2015; Steinmann & Pugnetti, 2021; Strużyna et al., 2021) also argues that preferences for more Western-like, participative leadership styles have been on the rise in Poland in the last few decades. Similarly, in Czech Republic the accepted and preferred leadership style was traditionally autocratic and transactional (Auer-Rizzi & Reber, 2013; Suutari & Riusala, 2001), however, Kohnová et al. (2023) identified a shift towards team-based and participative leadership in this country.

Hence, in addition to paucity, literature on business leadership in Slavic countries offers conflicting and limited, piecemeal insights. Extant literature entails, rather sporadically, some Slavic countries alongside other non-Slavic polygons, omitting dedicated, systematic, in-depth investigations of implicit leadership-related attributes and explicit manifestations (styles, behaviors) across and within Slavic nations and especially tribes. This research, furthermore, dominantly relies on leader-reported, thus, neglecting follower (employee)-reported data, and uses varying conceptualizations and operationalization of various leadership exhibitions, often inhibiting comprehension and replicability.

Hypotheses

Evidently, the cross-cultural management and leadership literature does not provide a consensus regarding the employees’ preferences for explicit leader behaviors in Slavic societal cultures. We, thus, draw on culturally contingent leadership theory (House et al., 2004) to examine the similarities and differences in such preferences in and across the participating Slavic nations. Extending the theory in Slavic context, we argue that despite sharing the same origins and ancestral heritage, Slavic nations belong to different tribes. These tribes have different languages, ethno-cultural subdivisions, that is, culture areas within their respective countries and have mixed, through time, with members of various ethnic, religious and other groups (Kamusella et al., 2016). Additionally, most of the Slavic nations, other than Russia that does, and Ukraine and Belarus which do not participate in this study, are relatively small and culturally homogenous countries with strong national cultures (Hofstede, 1980). This implies that intra-national similarities and not differences should be emphasized. We, thus, hypothesize:

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will significantly differ between Slavic tribes.

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will vary to a lesser degree between countries that belong to the same tribe, and to a greater degree between countries that belong to different tribes.

Mean scores for preferences for explicit leader behaviors will vary to a lesser degree between culture areas (regions) of the participating countries that belong to the same tribe, and to a greater degree between culture areas of the participating countries that belong to different tribes.

Method & Results

Samples & Data Collection

Specifics regarding the content, translation and validation of the utilized research instrument (the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, version XII; Stogdill, 1963), and the procedures and methods used to select, collect and analyze the data for this study are presented in the Editorial (Ljubica & Littrell) of this Special Issue. The sample specifics are presented in Tables S1 through S4 in our supplemental file. Despite our best efforts, some participants failed to provide complete demographic data which, therefore, varies across samples. Our “all-Slavic” sample entails 2542 participants. Women slightly outnumber men, and the average age of participants is 38. Most participants have high school or Bachelor’s degree, and work in private companies on the middle management level.

Results

In this section, we present the results of our analyses in terms of the distribution and the volume (number) of the significant (all computed differences are at the p ≤ .05 level) differences and similarities (lack thereof) between the samples. In the following section, we discuss the structure and magnitude, that is, the variations in mean scores, and the reasons we believe are behind these variations. In addition to the present elaboration, our results are presented in Figures S1, S2, and Tables S5 through S7 in the supplemental file.

Supporting H1, our findings reveal statistically significant distinctions across almost all behavioral dimensions among the Slavic tribes. As may be seen in Table S7, the only similarities were found for Southern and Western Slavs for Representation, Tolerance of Freedom and Role Assumption behavioral dimensions, and for Eastern and Western Slavs for Persuasiveness dimension.

Our H2 and H3, however, received partial support. Some significant differences in mean scores for employee preferences for explicit leader behaviors were found for country and regional samples that belong to the same tribe. In some cases, these were of larger volume than between different tribes, reflecting several recurring patterns in, both, volume and distribution as well as magnitude and structure of mean scores that emerged from our analyses. In both aspects, patterns related to similarities are more accentuated while the differences are mostly randomized. Siberian Russia and Czech Moravia exhibit the largest volume of differences relative to other samples. Siberian Russia differs from all samples across all the leader behavior dimensions except Persuasiveness, Production Emphasis, Integration and Superior Orientation, where it displays similarities to Czech Moravia. Differences in mean scores between Czech Moravia and other samples are much more randomized. The largest volume of similarities across the samples relates to the Representation dimension where, in addition to Russian Siberia displaying significant differences relative to all other samples, Czech Moravia and Bohemia exhibit significant differences relative to each other. Czech Moravia exhibits significant differences with all other samples for Consideration and Czech Bohemia for Superior Orientation, as do Croatia and Poland for Production Emphasis. Differences in mean scores for other samples and behavioral dimensions appear randomized.

These patterns offer valuable insights in leadership-related attitudes in and across Slavic nations, however, have limited explanatory power when disjoint from socio-cultural context. We, thus, draw on culturally contingent leadership theory and focus on variations in structure and magnitude, that is, mean scores of leader behavior preferences, and discuss the socio-cultural drivers behind such variations.

Discussion

Culturally contingent leadership theory suggests that leadership-related attitudes are influenced by cultural values, norms, and expectations (House et al., 2004). Extending the theory in the Slavic context, we provide explanations of the variations in the magnitude and structure of preferences for explicit leader behaviors in our participating polygons, thereby increasing the explanatory power of our study. In doing so, we contribute to the theory as well as the cross-cultural management and leadership literature by providing the first systematic cross-cultural comparison of leadership preferences in and across Slavic nations and tribes. We augment our contributions with elaborations of the drivers behind variations in the magnitude and structure of such preferences. However, due to the pioneering nature of our study, and its limitations, more research is needed to fortify our findings.

As may be seen in Figures S1 and S2, Southern Slavs and Western Slavs exhibit similarly high (er) scores for leader behavioral dimensions, relative to Eastern Slavs. Western and Southern Slavic countries have been nearing the Global West in the last few decades with most of the countries approaching Euro-integration. Global West nurtures norms that include transforming the role of a leader from autocratic or even authoritarian towards inspiring and exemplary figures, showcasing social brokerage, decreasing the difference across hierarchical echelons in organizations, and deemphasizing assertiveness of and dependability on leaders (Levene & Higgs, 2018; McCharthy et al., 2008; Nandeesh et al., 2022). These trends may have pushed Southern and Western Slavic nations culturally closer to the Global West, reflecting the importance, as well as higher expectations from their leaders. Southern Slavs, furthermore, have been experiencing almost never-ending military, political and social-cultural turmoil (indeed, the Southern Slavic or Balkan areas have long been known as a “powder keg”; Veremis, 2015), producing a tradition of admiring political, military and other types of leaders. These nations, thus, place higher importance and stronger expectations of these and other (business) leaders. Western Slavs, on the other hand, have been a part of the Global West the longest, thus, nurturing values of equality, participation and inclusion. Employees in these nations may be more self and less leader-reliant.

Eastern Slavic nations are quasi-democratic and authoritarian, depriving people outside of the elite circles from decision-making power. This may have diminished their faith and expectations from leaders, explaining lower scores relative to Southern and Western Slavs. Tribal cultural value profiles (see in this Special Issue) confirm these notions. Power Distance and Monumentalism are larger for Southern Slavs suggesting stronger reliance and expectation in leaders, as is Individualism for Western Slavs reflecting preference toward autonomy and self-reliance. Eastern Slavs have the lowest Power Distance and Individualism values, corroborating the lowest scores across the leader behavioral dimensions.

Representation, further, is the behavioral dimension with the highest degree of similarities between the samples. Relatively high scores for this dimension across all samples imply that Slavic employees perceive and respect the formal role of the leader as a representative of the group. The most preferred behaviors are those relationships focused – Demand Reconciliation, Persuasiveness, Consideration and Integration. The least preferred are task-focused behaviors of Production Emphasis, Superior Orientation, Tolerance of Freedom, as well as Tolerance of Uncertainty. This indicates that Slavic nations accentuate relational harmony and well-being, derogating task execution. Employees in these nations, thus, expect their leaders to play more of a social than executive role. Low scores for Tolerance of Freedom (empowerment), implying that Slavic employees expect their leaders to take and not share responsibility, support such notions, as do relatively high scores on Indulgence across all the participating polygons except for Russian regions (see in this Special Issue). Low scores for Tolerance of Uncertainty behaviors collide with low scores for the same dimension of societal culture and responsibility avoidance, in addition to relatively high Power Distance values across the polygons. This implies Slavic employees may be desensitized from, hence, have diminished expectations for future-structuring leader behaviors. Recent and still ongoing global health (Covid-19) and geopolitical turmoil, unfolding in some Slavic countries in particular, may be driving such an inclination. However, as elaborated below, more research is needed to underpin such a conclusion.

Limitations and Future Research

As with other studies dealing with international differences in business leadership-related attitudes and opinions, our study is not free of limitations. Firstly, despite our efforts, we were not able to collect data in all the Slavic countries, including Bulgaria, Slovenia, Montenegro (Southern Slavs), Slovakia (Western Slavs), and Belarus and Ukraine (Eastern Slavs). Second, our sample distributions across several criteria such as size, gender, job levels, regions of countries, ethnicities and others, are not balanced. Temporal, financial, and other constraints such as educational systems, social norms tabooing leadership research or religion identification prevented us to obtain more demographically balanced data. Third, our analysis focused exclusively on employee preferences for leader behaviors. Finally, analyzing cross-cultural data requires unique methods and techniques to account for cultural variations. Failing to do so may lead to misinterpretations of results and there is additional caution in the interpretation of the results. Future research must acknowledge multi-level dynamics between personal values and attributes, organizational and various environmental influences and their interactions with different cultural models and leadership conceptualizations.

Conclusion

As shown in our study, the concept of Slavic leadership emerges as a notably intricate construct, both similar but also different from “West” or “East” understandings of leadership (House et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022). Uncovering similarities and differences within and between Slavic countries and tribes, we offer the pioneering scientific insight into what truly is a Black Box of cross-cultural management and leadership research, leading us to rethink the approach of equating cultures to countries and vice versa. In doing so, we hope to ignite academic and professional interest for further discovering and uncovering the culture and leadership across and within these astonishing nations.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - A Comparison of Preferred Leader Behaviors in Slavic Countries: Three Tribes and Seven Nations

Supplemental Material for A Comparison of Preferred Leader Behaviors in Slavic Countries: Three Tribes and Seven Nations by Jasenko Ljubica, Zijada Rahimić, Michal Szymanski, Hana Lorencová, and Marina Klačmer Čalopa 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

Jasenko Ljubica

Michal Szymanski

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: jasenko01@net.hr Access may or may not be freely available due to the various persons, universities, and national governments involved.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Jasenko Ljubica is an Assistant Professor at the University of Split, Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism (FEBT) in Split, Croatia, where he obtained his Ph.D. in organization and management (2015; special focus on expatriate managers). His research lies at the intersection of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Psychology and Human Resources in International Business where he studies Expatriate Management and Global Leadership. Underpinning his research is his additional interest in Research Methods in Management Sciences. Following his professional career in international business, he has taught and conducted research across five continents and seven countries and received numerous awards and recognitions for his professional and academic work.

Zijada Rahimić is a Professor at the University of Sarajevo, School of Economics and Business, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to her professional academic experience, she is a consultant for many companies in the country and abroad and a researcher on various national, regional, and international projects. She has received several scholarships or participated as a guest lecturer at universities in Austria, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and Slovenia. Zijada is the author or co-author of several books, book chapters, and over 80 scientific papers in human resource management, leadership, diversity management and strategic management.

Michal Szymanski is an Associate Professor of business administration at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He holds a PhD in international management and organizations completed at the Gustavson School of Business, the University of Victoria (Canada). His research is at the confluence of international business, global leadership, and human resource management as the ultimate goal of his research is to understand how organizations can take full advantage of biculturals (i.e., people who have internalized two distinct cultures, such as Polish-British or Mexican-American individuals) and how these individuals can leverage their strengths in an organizational setting.

Hana Lorencová holds the position of Vice Dean for Education at the Faculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business. In addition to her administrative role, she is an active member of the department of managerial psychology and sociology. Her academic pursuits are grounded in her Master´s degree and PhD in Management and Business Administration, and her research spans several key areas including leadership, leadership skills development, teamwork, critical thinking, and motivation.

Marina Klačmer Čalopa is a full professor of social sciences, in the field of economics and a Dean at the University of Zagreb Faculty of Organization and Informatics. She has been teaching within the department of economics (financial institutions and markets, management of institutional investor, personal finance, capital market, and entrepreneurial venture) and the department of organization (Corporate Governance, Strategic Management, Strategic Management of Human Resources). She has been leading and participating in several national and international scientific and professional projects. For professional development, she has written and published scientific and professional papers in her main research domains – management, governance, and finance.

References

Ardichvili

(2001). Leadership styles and work-related values of managers and employees of manufacturing enterprises in post-communist countries. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1003

Auer-Rizzi

Reber

(2013). Leadership styles: Inertia and changes in the Czech republic. Journal for East European Management Studies, 18(1), 9–35. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2013-1-9

Bajcar

Babiak

(2015). Style kierowania polskich menedżerów-uwarunkowania organizacyjne. Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie/Politechnika Śląska, 79, 21–40.

Bakotić

Bulog

(2021). Organizational justice and leadership behavior orientation as predictors of employees job satisfaction: Evidence from Croatia. Sustainability, 13(19), 10569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910569

Balabanova

Rebrov

Koveshnikov

(2018). Managerial styles in privately owned domestic organizations in Russia: Heterogeneity, antecedents, and organizational implications. Management and Organization Review, 14(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2018.1

Bojadjiev

Kostovski

Buldioska

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

Costigan

R. D.

Insinga

R. C.

Berman

J. J.

Kranas

Kureshov

V. A.

(2011). Revisiting the relationship of supervisor trust and ceo trust to turnover intentions: A three-country comparative study. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 74–83. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.019

Crede

Jong

Harms

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

Dabić

Tipurić

Podrug

(2014). Cultural differences affecting decision-making style: A comparative study between four countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.859172

10.

Drakulovski

Lj.

Debarliev

Janeska-Ilie

Taneva-Veshovska

(2017). A story on leadership styles from Macedonian compania: Components of transformational vs. transactional leadership influenced by aspects of emotional intelligence. Ecoforum, 6(2), 1–18.

11.

Eisenberg

Pieczonka

Eisenring

Mironski

(2015). Poland, a workforce in transition: Exploring leadership styles and effectiveness of Polish vs. Western expatriate managers. Journal for East European Management Studies, 20(4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2015-4-435

12.

Elenkov

(1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165968

13.

Fabac

Kokot

Bubalo

(2022). Path-goal theory – leadership styles and their changes during covid-19 pandemic. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 20(4), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.20.4.4

14.

Fey

Adaeva

Vitkovskaia

(2001). Developing a model of leadership styles: What works best in Russia? International Business Review, 10(6), 615–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00035-X

15.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5): Sage Publications.

16.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

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

17.

Janićijević

Marinković

(2015). Empirical testing of Hofstede’s measures of national culture and their impact on leadership in four countries. Ekonomika preduzeća, 63(5-6), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekopre1506264J

18.

Kamusella

Nomachi

Gibson

(2016). The Palgrave handbook of Slavic languages, identities and borders. Palgrave McMillan.

19.

Kohnová

Stacho

Salajová

Stachová

Papula

(2023). Application of agile management methods in companies operating in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(2), 2142809. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2142809

20.

Kostić-Bobanović

Bobanović

(2013). Research on leadership: A comparative study in Croatia and Sweden. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 26(sup1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2013.11517645

21.

Kostovski

Bojadjiev

Buldioska

(2015). Leadership styles and organizational culture in Macedonian companies. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(13), 110–136.

22.

Koźmiński

A. M.

(2013). Ograniczone przywództwo. In Studium empiryczne. Poltex.

23.

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

24.

Littrell

R. F.

(2002). Desirable leadership behaviours of multi‐cultural managers in China. The Journal of Management Development, 21(1), 5–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210413190

25.

McCarthy

D. J.

Puffer

S. M.

May

R. C.

Ledgerwood

D. E.

Stewart

W. H.

Jr. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.04.002

26.

Mileva

Bojadjiev

Stefanovska-Petkovska

Tomovska Misoska

(2020). Investigation of organizational culture in companies in high rate polluted countries: Review of existing evidence and application of the new vox organizationis model. In 15th Annual International Conference on European Integration (AICEI2020). Skopje. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4393515

27.

Nandeesh

N. S. Y.

Narasimha

Bhandari

(2022). Cross-cultural leadership: A systematic literature review. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(7), 2596–2609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2022.2131232

28.

Radulovic

A. B.

Thomas

Epitropaki

Legood

(2019). Forgiveness in leader–member exchange relationships: Mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 498–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12274

29.

Steinmann

Pugnetti

(2021). Leading in Switzerland and Poland: A case study of leadership practices in financial services. International Journal of Financial Studies, 9(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9010006

30.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1963). Manual for the leadership behavior description questionnaire – form XII. Ohio State University, Fisher College of Business. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from. https://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdq

31.

Strużyna

Marzec

Bozionelos

(2021). Competency management in bureaucratic organizations: Evidence from the Polish public administration. European Management Review, 18(2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12437

32.

Sułkowski

Ł.

Mączyński

(2017). A seven nations study of leadership attributes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 48(2), 307–314. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1515/ppb-2017-0035

33.

Suutari

Riusala

(2001). Leadership styles in central eastern Europe: Experiences of Finnish expatriates in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(2), 249–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(99)00037-8

34.

Veremis

(2015). The modern balkans: A concise guide to nationalism, politics, the rise and decline of the nation state. LSEE Research on South Eastern Europe.

35.

Yukl

(2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

36.

Zenku

Kotevska Dimovska

(2022). The role of transformational leadership in successful management with pandemic challenges in the companies in Republic of North Macedonia. European Journal of Economics, Law and Social Sciences, 6(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021267

37.

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

38.

Zhang

Zheng

Zhang

Liu

Chen

(2021). A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(1), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9639-z

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

0.58 MB