Western views and Chinese whispers: Re-thinking global leadership competency in multi-national corporations

Abstract

Multi-national corporations (MNCs) appoint Chinese managers at middle management level locally and make extensive efforts to develop their leadership capabilities, yet the number of Chinese managers progressing to senior global level leadership positions lags behind the expectations of both MNCs and local managers. MNC leadership models, often represented in leadership competency frameworks (LCFs), reflect implicit ideas of leadership largely common to executives who share similar (western) cultural backgrounds. This is reinforced by leadership literature that is also strongly influenced by a western perspective. Local managers from non-western cultural backgrounds may hold different conceptions of leadership and struggle to understand MNC leadership requirements. This study explores the leadership constructs of 31 senior global executives and those of 59 local Chinese managers in MNCs operating in China by means of repertory grid methodology. The differences between the two groups and between each group and the LCFs used in their organizations revealed important differences: half the key constructs of leadership used by the senior global leaders were not identified as important or commonly used by the Chinese managers. Most of the ‘missing’ constructs reflect charismatic and transformational leadership characteristics. When compared with the MNCs’ leadership frameworks, differences between the senior global leaders constructs and their company LCFs were found. The gaps between the Chinese managers’ constructs and the same frameworks were even greater. These findings have implications for global leadership theory and practice.

Keywords

Global leadership in MNCs leadership in China implicit leadership theory transformational and charismatic leadership leadership competency frameworks

Introduction

A challenge for multi-national corporations (MNCs) is to offer consistent leadership globally but also meet local leadership needs and aspirations. This is particularly evident in China, where MNCs have identified the country as a strategic focus for business development but have experienced difficulty in developing and retaining Chinese managers with leadership potential to support their growth (Mercer, 2008). Despite continuous efforts to develop Chinese managers’ leadership capabilities and by appointing Chinese managers at middle management level locally, the number of Chinese managers progressing to senior global level leadership positions lags behind the expectations of both MNCs and local managers (Farrell and Grant, 2005). This is both an issue of resourcing and of Chinese managers’ perceptions of a glass ceiling. As a result, MNCs find themselves increasingly competing for a small group of Chinese managers who are perceived to possess an appropriate educational background, language skills and the necessary leadership capabilities. They also find that they still have disproportionate recruitment of expatriate managers. While expatriate managers add value to local organizations in terms of experience, skills and a deeper understanding of the global company culture, due to language and cultural barriers, most expatriate managers lack long-term commitment to the local organization (Goodall et al., 2006). The perception that expatriate managers are the root cause of the ‘glass ceiling’ for local employees further exacerbates the problem of lack of senior promotions amongst local managers. From the MNC point of view, China is an important region and they see strategic advantage in Chinese managers attaining senior positions locally as well as for these managers to move onto the global stage as senior global expat leaders in other countries.

The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of leadership in MNCs in China and to contribute to wider theoretical understanding of global leadership. The global leadership literature is concerned with the issues involved in working across cultures, the universality of leadership compentency and the question of the utility of leadership theory developed from a predominantly western perspective. Although improved HR practices may be part of the solution, we argue that focusing largely on creating tried and tested HR solutions that work globally provides only a partial solution. This is because many HR practices are based on an assumption that leadership is broadly the same wherever it is exercised in the world and this universality is increasingly challenged (Lord and Maher, 1991). Similarly, the commitment to competency as the best way to communicate, assess and develop leadership capability has been criticized (Bolden and Gosling, 2006; Boydell et al., 2004). Much research on leadership style originates in the West with empirical data generated by studying western managers in western settings. As a consequence, western assumptions about leadership are incorporated into leadership theory which in turn generates, for example, measures of leadership style, global leadership competency and leadership books for a managerial audience. Western assumptions become part of leadership rhetoric and reinforce ‘this is how leadership is’, despite an increasing recognition that culture and context are critical (House and Aditya, 1997).

In this study, Repertory Grid methodology was employed to elicit constructs of leadership used by senior global leaders and by Chinese managers in MNCs in China to explore the potential differences between these groups. This methodology enables the interviewer to uncover nuances the interviewee might not otherwise be able to articulate easily as constructs influence perceptions and actions without being consciously named (Fransella et al., 2004; Jankowicz, 2004; Kelly, 1955). The constructs elicited were compared with participants’ companies’ leadership competency frameworks (LCFs). The resulting findings challenge the use of a universal LCF as a tool for developing and assessing senior global leaders and suggest that MNCs need to pay much more attention to understanding how local managers think about leadership and how to bridge an unvoiced gap between local and HQ constructs, rather than by assuming a western one size fits all.

Leadership in a global context

We begin by exploring the theories which reflect western thinking on leadership and which have also become influential in the development of LCFs in MNCs. We then offer a critique of these from cross-cultural and Chinese leadership literatures, and show how Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) proposes that leaders from different cultural backgrounds construe leadership differently. These literatures confirm that there are problems in using leadership concepts derived from one cultural domain applied in another. We then show that competencies, which are a key element of LCFs, are criticized and challenged as an adequate approach for developing leadership and assessing potential leadership capability for MNCs’ global leadership cadres, precisely because they do not take diverse contexts and cultural differences into account.

What do we mean by global leadership?

As far back as 1992, Bartlett and Ghoshal questioned the concept of a global leader and asked how different is it from domestic or international leadership? For example, an executive may go to work as an expat, but not be ‘global’. The really ‘trans-national’ – or global leader needs to take a global perspective and have a different set of competencies from peers who may work as an expat in a single country. Bartlett and Ghoshal (1992) suggest such executives need to maintain a balance between international scope and local responsiveness, keeping in mind the whole global organization rather than simply adapting to each location.

The idea of competency as a tool for developing and assessing leadership was adopted by Boyatzis (1982) who describes competency as ‘an underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to effective or superior performance’ (21). A competence usually comprises knowledge, skills and behaviour, and Boyatzis identified leadership as one competence group associated with above average performance. Research on global leadership has attempted to identify global leadership competency, many of which are consistent with, and emerge from, transformational leadership theory which in turn builds on charismatic and visionary leadership theory (see for example, Bass, 1985, 1997, 1998; Bryman, 1992; Burns, 1978; Campbell, 2006; Manning, 2003; Yukl, 2006). Building on Burns (1978), Bass (1985) contrasted transactional and transformational leadership styles: transformational leadership is found less commonly but is a desirable leadership approach which is important to develop. Transformational leadership theory used a largely western-based population of managers to generate instruments for assessing transformational leadership competencies: for example, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), (Avolio et al., 2010; Bass and Avolio, 1994) and the transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ) (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005), and these tools became extensively used by MNCs in developing leaders (Munir et al., 2009). The four transformational leadership behaviours are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. In contrast, transactional leadership behaviours are aimed at monitoring and controlling employees through rational or economic means. The transformational behaviours came to play an important role in prescribing leadership profiles, shaping individual’s concepts of leadership and shaping how leaders evaluate leadership capabilities in MNCs and are reflected in the global leadership competency research.

However, researchers have continually struggled to define global leadership (Osland et al., 2008) and there is diversity of perspectives as to whether this is ‘domestic leadership plus some other attributes’ or a different set of attributes altogether. Mendenhall (2008), for example, argues that while most competencies required in the domestic leadership arenas find equivalents at the global level (for example everything from vision, to the ability to lead change), the global arena places far higher demands on their deployment. A contrasting perspective is that global leadership is essentially universal leadership (transformational) plus the cross-cultural element (e.g. Bass, 1997, 1998; Manning, 2003). This perspective supports a view of universal leadership competency found in several studies: for example, Campbell’s (2006) nine aspects of leadership are universal precisely because they vary little in different intercultural contexts. Goldsmith et al. (2003) identified five crucial factors for leaders to deal with global challenges, and Kets de Vries’ Vrignaud P and Florent-Treacy E (2004) Global Executive Leadership Inventory (GELI) measures 12 competencies which can be used globally. Kets de Vries (2004) describes a charismatic element to global leadership having envisioning, empowering and energizing emotional intelligence competencies as well as more transactional ‘architectural’ competencies such as organization design. These competence models also address the global thinking suggested by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1992), for example, global mindset (Kets de Vries, 2004) or thinking globally (Goldsmith et al., 2003).

The importance of transformational leadership for global leadership has contributed to a western universalist perspective on leadership underpinning much global leadership research. The result is, as House and Aditya’s (1997) observe, leadership theories are culture-bound, reflecting U.S. assumptions, values and beliefs (p. 443). In response to such challenges, research has started to test transformational/transactional leadership theories in global organizations and in different cultural environments (e.g. Che et al., 2011; House et al., 2002, 2004; Tsui et al., 2004), and suggests that there is a significant risk in assuming global leadership constructs are universal.

Perhaps the most referenced example of cross-cultural leadership research has been the GLOBE project (see for example, Den Hartog et al., 1999; House et al., 2002, 2004) which found that a number of leader characteristics (traits) were seen either as universally positive or universally negative, but critically that a substantive number appeared to be culturally contingent (House et al., 2002). For example, the GLOBE project reports that Chinese managers scored lower than US managers on enthusiastic, risk taking, ambitious and unique (House et al., 2004). Similarly, Robie et al. (2001) compared the relative importance of leadership competency across several countries and found a high correlation across the countries, with the most critical competencies being: analyse issues, drive for results, show work commitment and influence others. And consistent with GLOBE, they found that many cultural contingencies were more about how competencies are demonstrated than what the competencies are. For example, while building relationships is a ‘universal’ competency, the mechanics of building relationships can vary greatly depending on culture. Similarly Dickson et al. (2001) concluded that some leadership principles are universal (i.e. the construct and its expression are similar across cultures), while others are vari-form (i.e. the general principle holds but its enactment varies across cultures). So, while there is some consistency in leadership constructs at the global level, there are also potential cultural differences.

Global leadership studies have value in helping managers become more effective leaders within and between diverse culture contexts (Guthey and Jackson, 2011), but the majority of cross-culture and global leadership studies have an inevitably western perspective (e.g. conducting research in western headquarters, among western executives and/or initiated by western researchers), and so have been criticized for inadequate understanding of the local leadership in other culture environments such as Asian countries (Littrell, 2002). It is important therefore to look at what is emerging from a less western-centric perspective – and particularly in this case, in the Chinese context.

Leadership from a Chinese perspective

Studies on Chinese leadership behaviours and developing Chinese leadership profiles have attracted more attention in recent years (Lakey, 2007). The literature has struggled to reconcile two differing agendas: first, that which sought to compare, refine and apply theories created elsewhere (typically western theories) to the Chinese context (e.g. Tsui et al., 2004) and second, that which focuses on establishing a theoretical foundation for Chinese leadership theory (e.g. Selvarajah and Meyer, 2008).

Refining western models to a Chinese context has been one line of inquiry: Lakey (2007) reports that research by a Japanese researcher (Misumi, 1985) used a western model to study Chinese leadership, and that formed the basis of further development by Chinese researchers. For example, Ling (1989) found effective Chinese leadership to include an additional factor to those proposed by western theories: C (the ‘moral character’). However, these studies are still challenged by some scholars as utilizing a western understanding of leadership (Pittinsky and Zhu, 2005). Han et al. (2010) and Paine (2010) tested and developed western-developed theories in the Chinese context and found unique elements in Chinese managers’ leadership concepts. Later research studying transformational leadership of Chinese migrant workers in manufacturing confirms the importance of cultural and wider contextual influences when applying western-based theories in a Chinese context (Miao et al., 2012).

Some scholars (e.g. Ling, 1989) argue that Chinese leadership constructs are different from the West’s and an understanding of implicit Chinese leadership theories should be the first step in examining Chinese leadership behaviours. This proposal led to the emergence of a stream of China leadership research which attempts to explore the relationship between the Chinese leadership concept and Chinese culture (e.g. Laulusa, 2008; Ling et al., 2000; Wang, 2003). Ling et al. (2000) found four factors of Chinese leadership emerging from the analysis: personal morality, goal effectiveness, interpersonal competency and versatility, all resonating with Confucian philosophy. Taormina and Selvarajah (2005) found four behaviours that delineate leadership excellence in an ASEAN context, but suggests that these have resonance with both western and Confucian (Chinese) values. However, Ralston et al. (1999) had already found the new generation of Chinese managers to be less committed to Confucian philosophy than the older generation, moving from collectivist attitudes towards western style individualism. A ‘reverse’ interest in the literature is the relevance of Chinese philosophy for western concepts of leadership (McElhatton and Jackson, 2012; Prince, 2005) which explore Tao philosophy and its implications for a more harmonious approach to leadership in the West. In an era of globalization, eastern and western views are perhaps no longer entirely separable and the idea that leadership is either Chinese or western may be particularly unhelpful as managers are exposed to multiple cultures through the media and particularly in some workplaces such as MNCs.

A significant factor in understanding leadership in China is that in much of the leadership research conducted in China, the nature of the institutions involved (e.g. state-owned, private-owned, multinational and joint venture, etc.) is unclear and yet there is some evidence that it has a significant impact. Wang and Clegg (2007) make this clear in their study of privately owned enterprises in China, arguing that in a culturally complex country whose provinces are bigger than most European countries, researchers need to be specific about the context of any investigation and its generalizability to other types of institutions or settings. Oddou and Mendenhall (1998) found that wholly foreign-owned MNCs in China perform significantly better than their joint venture or Chinese-owned counterparts. They argue the gaps in company cultures and leadership behaviours among different types of organizations (i.e. local private, state-owned, MNC wholly owned, joint ventures) are much larger in China than those found in developed countries, and these are factors that differentiate performance. The implication for the study reported here is that Chinese employees (who hope to make their career in an MNC environment) must be socialized specifically into a MNC culture and learn how leadership is exercised in a culture which may not necessarily share the same leadership concepts as those operating in a range of other local Chinese organizations. As studies conducted in private entities in China cannot be generalized to MNCs or state-owned companies, there is a need to understand leadership in different types of organizations. Most studies either apply western models to China or develop Chinese models based on Chinese culture and philosophy: neither of these two approaches addresses the issues for MNCs operating in China because these organizations fall into neither category. They are western based and global, but at the same time are employing Chinese locals with career ambition: to date, there have been very few leadership studies in MNCs in China. Understanding local differences in leadership constructs may be important even in organizations which seek to produce consistent leadership across the globe: the differences may impact how local leaders practise leadership and how they are perceived because the difference may be not be explicit.

Implicit leadership theories – how ‘universal’ can global leadership be?

Implicit constructs of leadership can influence behaviour and subsequently whether this equates to ‘what leadership looks like’ in the eyes of the beholder. These constructs are often deeply embedded notions of leadership drawn from myths, values and assumptions reflecting both universal ideas of leadership and local culture.

ILTs refer to the underlying constructions of leadership that people use to recognize leadership in others (see for example, Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord and Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 2001). ‘While leadership perceptions may not be reality, they are used by perceivers to evaluate and subsequently distinguish leaders from non-leaders or effective from ineffective leaders’ (Lord and Maher, 1991: 98). The recognition of individuals as leaders is critically contingent upon the observer’s perception that they have the characteristics of a good leader. This recognition is based on their fit with existing leadership prototypes (Lord and Emrich, 2000). An individual’s ILT is built on beliefs about how leaders behave in general and what is expected of them, rather than being about what they actually do (Eden and Leviathan, 1975). The better the fit between the individual under scrutiny and the observer’s ILT, the more likely this person will be seen as a leader (Lord and Emrich, 2000).

ILTs develop slowly over time through repeated experiences with objects, persons or situations (e.g. Konrad, 2000; Rush and Russell, 1988). They are coherent and consistent over time and while Brown and Lord (2001) argue that they only change when the context changes, Poole et al. (1989) and Epitropaki and Martin (2004) observed that the reluctance to go through the discomfort of a cognitive redefinition phase led to ILTs remaining stable and persistent over time. This suggests that leaders who find themselves in a new cultural environment may not quickly adapt their underlying ideas about leadership. This has implications for this study because among the six companies taking part in the research, 85% of the director and above positions were held by expatriates.

Cultural values and norms influence commonly held ILTs and they vary by culture (Lord and Maher, 1991). In this regard, in terms of cultural background, Chinese managers can be viewed as the ‘minority’ by members of the MNCs’ management (most of whom are western leaders), and in consequence their leadership behaviours may not fit with their western superiors’ ILTs, even though their traits and behaviours are leader-like in a Chinese context. Schyns (2006) pointed out the consequence of ILTs’ impact on minority leaders’ career development in the western society: A person may just not fit the implicit leadership theories of his or her supervisor and will therefore be disadvantaged in the promotion process although he or she has the same capacity as the successful candidate (Schyns, 2006: 195).

Using Schyn’s analysis but applying it in the Chinese context, it is possible that in comparison with a Chinese manager, a western manager’s behaviours are more aligned with their western superiors’ ILTs and so are seen as more leader-like, whereas Chinese managers may be less favourably evaluated due to the misaligned ILTs with their western superiors. If, both Chinese and western leaders construe leadership from their own cultural perspectives, and at the same time their ILTs remain stable, being resistant and persistent over time, then it may well lead to a challenge to Chinese managers’ career progress in MNCs. This has implications for the universality of explicit constructions of leadership such as LCFs.

The value of LCFs in culturally diverse contexts

Many MNCs believe that by utilizing a LCF, they can systematically align behaviour with a selected leadership strategy (Schuler and Jackson, 1987) and in order to achieve global consistency and alignment, they are rarely tailored to local situations. However, Boydell et al. (2004) suggest that this practice is problematic: ‘the competencies preferenced by companies need to reflect the particular challenges faced by the organization itself and critically the context in which they arise’ (p. 33) – while assuring global alignment, universal adoption of a LCF potentially overlooks the particular requirements of local business operations and may negatively impact the progress of local leaders into senior positions. This argument is reinforced by Bolden and Gosling (2006) who argue that a competency approach is like a repeating refrain with an ‘ideal leader’ and little consideration given to current and emerging social and organizational context. They review the problems of competency approaches which include the questionable empirical evidence for most competency frameworks in practice. Much is based on self-report data from senior executives, in particular directors and the CEO, and so reflects their personal ideas about leadership and the cultural context in which they learned about leadership and have experienced leadership. Thus, a competency approach promulgates an objectivist view of organizational life in which many alternative assumptions remain hidden and unchallenged because the LCF is derived from successful existing senior leaders – as if this is the only way successful leadership can be expressed. Carroll et al. (2008) argue that leadership cannot be defined, promoted and enhanced by a single set of independent, context-free and cumulative behaviours, traits and abilities, performing a standard set of prescribed behaviours that remain constant regardless of context and that the ubiquity of competency thinking is more of a restraint to leadership thinking and development than a facilitator of richness and possibility.

This study therefore integrates these different threads in the literatures that address leadership in a global context. We conclude that much of the global leadership literature is aligned with western leadership research which draws on transformational and charismatic leadership and a competency-based approach to produce universalist approaches to leadership which can be applied globally. Although cross-cultural literatures such as the GLOBE project also indicate local cultural and contextual differences across the world, these studies do not look at leadership from specifically Chinese assumptions. Chinese leadership research suggests that there are indeed different perspectives which inform leadership practice behaviour, and ILT supports the view that leadership needs to be understood from the points of view embedded in a specific context: if a person’s ILT formed in one culture is not aligned with another’s formed in a different culture, it is likely that the individual will not perceive the other’s behaviour to be leader like.

There is therefore a potent argument that if Chinese managers construe leadership differently from the expat leaders who will assess their leadership potential (different ILTs), and if MNCs use LCFs based on western thinking and western leaders’ personal views (competency based and aligned with western leadership thinking) to communicate leadership requirements, then Chinese managers need to grasp the different expectations for leadership in an MNC from a local enterprise that they might otherwise work in. If the LCFs do not reflect the complete set of leadership constructs used by expats – for example, they are based on a few leaders views such as the directors and CEO – or their actual constructs of leadership are different from the LCF (their actual ILT rather than the espoused company view), then it will be difficult for Chinese manager to grasp these nuances. While managers with similar western upbringing or experiences might share leadership assumptions, Chinese managers cannot assume such similarity. MNCs are a particular case for study – they need leadership consistency, cannot adopt specifically Chinese frameworks, yet may benefit from greater understanding of the perspectives of both expat and Chinese managers about leadership. MNCs have been under-researched in the Chinese context.

This analysis and synthesis of the literatures lead us to explore the leadership constructs of senior global leaders and Chinese local managers, comparing both to their companies LCF and to one another. The following questions framed the investigation and analysis.

Within MNCs operating in China

How do senior global leaders construe leadership?

Are senior leaders’ leadership constructs aligned with their companies’ LCFs?

How do local Chinese managers construe leadership?

What are the commonalities and differences between the senior global leaders' and Chinese managers’ leadership constructs?

Are the Chinese managers’ constructs aligned with their companies’ LCFs?

How managers in MNCs in China construe leadership

Six western headquartered MNCs were chosen within which to conduct the research. Each had a long track record in China and the sample provided a spread in terms of organizational origin (n = 2 American, n = 1 northern European, n = 1 French and n = 2 British) and industry (n = 2 energy, petrochemicals, retail, insurance and logistics services n = 1). From conversations with their HR directors and CEOs, it was clear that each company had attempted to accelerate the career progress of local talent into senior global leadership positions but that most senior positions were still held by expatriates. Access was granted because this research was supported by the companies’ management teams as aligning with their interests.

Two groups of participants were interviewed. The first group comprised of 31 senior global leaders based in China who were identified by their own companies as being of ‘global leader’ level (i.e. these senior leaders were not only on the companies’ management team in China but were also part of their global leadership team). They were equally distributed across the six companies. As the interviewees accounted for 80% of the management team members in these companies (the other 20% unavailable due to travel/schedule issues), the constructs identified in this study represent a majority of the management team members’ leadership constructs. On average, these global leader interviewees had over 13 years of experience in their current organization. In terms of the demographic spread of the interviewees, there were 23 expatriates (eight Americans, nine Europeans and six from the other countries) and eight Chinese leaders. All the Chinese leaders were ‘returnees’, having studied and worked in western countries before returning to China to take senior leadership roles.

The second group of participants comprised 59 local Chinese managers drawn from across the same companies. All had equivalent levels of seniority (second or third tier); comparable length of service (average 3.7 years) and none had worked abroad. They were identified by their leaders (the senior global leader interviewees) based on their judgement of the individuals’ leadership potential – whether they could become senior global leaders in the next five to six years (i.e. HPs) or not (i.e. Others).

Research method

Senior global leaders and Chinese managers’ leadership constructions were elicited using repertory grid technique (RGT), (Fransella et al., 2004; Jankowicz, 2004). Deriving from personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955), RGT elicits a person’s construct system as a finite number of dichotomous constructs on the basis of which elements (things, people and events that the person encounters) are categorized as ‘similar to’ and ‘different from’ others in the domain of interest (in this case leadership). Theoretically, these otherwise ‘implicit’ constructs are used by the individual to anticipate and predict how the world and its inhabitants might behave (Kelly, 1955). RGT is a suitable methodology and has been widely adopted in leadership research in the development of the TLQ (e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000): elicited leadership constructs are clustered to form the basis for the TLQ that assesses transformational leadership competency.

RGT accesses knowledge about personal world-views (Fransella and Bannister, 1977) by asking interviewees to specify how they construe the phenomenon under scrutiny (Langan-Fox and Tan, 1997). An element is an example of, exemplar of, instance of, sampling of, or occurrence within, a particular topic. Each interviewee chose nine elements (in this case, individuals in their business), three from each of the three categories:

Global leaders: individuals already in global leadership positions and at HR consultancy Mercer’s Job Grade 63 (Mercer’s International Position Evaluation System (IPE)) and above for consistency across companies in the study: V.P., Director, etc.

High potential (HP): considered by the interviewee ‘potentially to be able to become global leaders within the next five years’.

Low potential managers (Others): considered by the interviewee to be ‘unlikely to become global leaders’.

In each case, the ‘elements’ had to be leaders known to the interviewee well enough to be familiar with their leadership behaviours.

The interview followed a standard RGT protocol: the researcher randomly chooses three elements and asks the interviewee to differentiate amongst them in order to elicit construct poles (‘which two are similar to each other and different from the third, and in what ways?’). Each element is subsequently rated on a five-point rating scale on the construct elicited to determine how the interviewee judges how the elements perform on each construct. This process is repeated until no new constructs are elicited.

On average, each interview lasted between 60 and 75 min. The RGT interviews proceeded on a round by round basis to elicit the interviewees’ constructs, with the interviewer drawing three element cards at random each time. The actual interview was therefore built around the question: ‘How are two managers similar to each other and different from the third in terms of leadership?’ ‘Laddering’ technique was frequently utilized to elicit deeper levels of leadership perceptions. For example, when comparing the elements an interviewee mentioned aggressive, he was then asked further questions such as: ‘From what kind of behaviours is a person identified as aggressive?’ and ‘Is aggressiveness very important for a leader?’ From the answer, it appeared that ‘aggressiveness’ from this interviewee’s perspective was not only related to trying to achieve better performance, but also in personal career progress (i.e. to improving competency and advancing a career aggressively). This led to two separate constructs being listed, i.e. ‘aggressively improve job performance’ and ‘aggressively improve competency and develop career’. Thus, the Laddering technique enables the researcher to clarify or probe definition of the constructs, or the logic behind distinctive scores provided by the interviewee, etc.

The RGT interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. In terms of language, interviews with expatriate managers were conducted in English, whilst those with Chinese managers were conducted in Mandarin. They were conducted in Mandarin because there were varying levels of English competence in the Chinese population, within both the HP and Others groups. By using Mandarin, comparisons are made between constructs elicited, not between varying capabilities with the English language. Whilst English language is one of several factors affecting promotion prospects, such as mobility and ambition, this was not the subject of this study and so by using a common language, Mandarin, it made comparison of constructs elicited in a familiar language possible across the Chinese populations (HP and Others). The Chinese interview transcriptions were subsequently translated by a professional translator, and further verified by the Chinese researcher in order to ensure no additional concepts or interpretations based on language nuances came into the transcriptions.

Data analysis

When investigating the common constructs of a group of individuals, where multiple individual repertory grids are involved, the analysis is first conducted of the individual grids (single grid analysis). The primary components of the single grid analysis consist of analysing the ratings of element categories and principal components analysis (PCA). Patterns of explanations from each are then compared with the individual grids of others to identify commonalities and divergences (cross-grid analysis). The process of cross-grid analysis is taken from Goffin et al. (2006) and involves the steps of categorization of the constructs and identification of the key constructs.

A computer program (Idiogrid) was used in the single grid analysis to provide descriptive statistics which explores how constructs and elements are related, allowing identification of the constructs which are of greatest importance (i.e. their variations are above average) to the interviewee, and more critically to expose how discrimination amongst elements occurs. The analysis of the single grids and cross-grids using Idiogrid are supported by checking the constructs poles against the data generated by the laddering technique; this enables the researcher to ensure that the meaning of the poles are understood and are used for accurate comparisons. Subsequently, the data output from individual grids were coded and categorized across the grids to identify key constructs commonly shared by each interviewee group, i.e. senior global leaders or Chinese local managers. Ultimately, the results from the two groups are compared.

The process of cross-grid analysis, following Goffin et al. (2006), involved (1) the derivation of the leadership construct categories and (2) the determination of key construct categories. All constructs from individual grids within a group (global leader, HPs or Others) were pooled for initial coding (categorization) and recoding. Initial coding involved independent allocation of leadership constructs by two researchers into categories on the basis of similarity and then discrepancies between their independently derived coding categories being resolved through discussion to create a common set of enhanced categories. To ensure category content, validity researchers constantly referred to the interview transcripts during the process. To address convergent and discriminant validity issues, they also defined what each construct category included and excluded. The pooled leadership constructs were then independently recoded into one of the enhanced categories. In the absence of definitive guidance, analysis proceeded once agreement on recoding allocation exceeded 70% (Griffin et al., 2007).

Key construct categories were determined based on their relative importance. To avoid focusing on obvious but non-discriminating categories, relative importance was defined by frequency count and variability. Following guidance for identifying construct, importance constructs with frequency above 30% and variability greater than average were identified as key construct categories after the variation scores were normalized to accommodate different numbers of constructs being elicited in each interview (Goffin et al., 2006).

Findings

The findings are reported in relation to each research question posed at the conclusion of the literature review.

How do senior global leaders construe leadership?

Among the 392 constructs elicited from the 31 interviewees, single grid analysis identified 194 as important constructs (i.e. their variations are above average). These individually important constructs were subsequently used in the comparisons between individual and own companies’ LCF and also provided the pool of constructs for the cross-grid analysis process.

The initial coding of senior global leaders constructs yielded 24 enhanced categories. The second round coding process was completed with the overall coding reliability ratio of 72%, with reliability of 76% of the top 10 construct categories.

The senior global leaders' key leadership constructs

Twelve construct categories fulfilled the key leadership construct criteria. These key constructs and their definitions are given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Category definition of senior global leaders’ key constructs.

Construct category	Definition
Creative	Able to come up with new ideas and concepts
Drive to improve	Continuous learning and improvement
Communication skill	Good at conveying and expressing opinion to get people’s understanding; understand people’s needs and thoughts
Collaborative style	Teamwork; cooperate and share with others
Charisma	A inherent personal quality to inspire and influence others
Professional knowledge and experience	Understand business with broad and deep knowledge, experience and skills
Visionary	Envision what future looks like; including strategic thinking
Cross-cultural insight	Exposed to different cultures and understands different parts of world
Flexible	Adapt to various situations and solutions
Confident	Self assured; willing to speak out and unafraid of conflict
Team development	Identify team members’ potential and willing to grow them
Emotional intelligence	Self aware, and sensitive to people’s feelings

The senior global leaders' perspectives on capable global leaders and HP managers

The key leadership constructs of senior global leaders were applied to the assessment of capable global leaders, HP and Others to identify their most frequently mentioned and higher rated constructs for capable GLs and high potential middle level managers (HPs) and low potential middle managers (Others). Table 2 summarizes the outcome of the data analysis.

Table 2.

Constructs senior global leaders utilized to discriminate global leaders and HPs.

Constructs used to discriminate global leaders	Constructs used to discriminate HPs	Key constructs?
Visionary	Yes
Charisma	Yes
Communication skills	Yes
Professional knowledge and experience	Yes
Pragmatic	Pragmatic
Can do attitude	Can do attitude
Intelligent
Collaborative style	Yes

The constructs senior global leaders used to discriminate global leaders from middle level managers included visionary, charisma, communication skill, professional knowledge/experience, pragmatic and can-do attitude. As the first four constructs were also identified as key constructs, it can be argued that they primarily used these constructs to identify capable global leaders.

In contrast, the constructs most strongly used to discriminate HPs from others were: collaborative style, intelligent, pragmatic and can-do attitude. Compared with global leaders, HP middle level managers were scored even higher in collaborative style and intelligent suggesting that these two constructs were important in relation to middle managers being seen as ‘high potential’. The constructs they used about HPs are different from how senior global leaders construe other senior global leaders: this is interesting because it may create difficulties for HPs when they are considered for promotion if they do not fit the senior profile. Comparing these constructs with those used to distinguish global leaders (i.e. visionary, charisma, communication skill and professional knowledge/experience) suggests the important development areas for HP managers. It is important to note that these key constructs being used by these senior leaders, charisma, communication skill and professional knowledge/experience were not mentioned in the companies’ LCFs. This is discussed further below.

The Others received low scores across all constructs from the senior global leaders. Their three lowest scored constructs (i.e. visionary, charisma and communication skill) are exactly the same as those the interviewees used to discriminate global leaders from middle level managers: this reinforces the conclusion that these leaders primarily use these constructs to distinguish leadership capability and potential. Again, it is notable that two of three of these do not appear on the company LCF.

Are senior leaders’ leadership constructs aligned with their companies’ LCFs?

The outcome of comparison (Table 3) shows that the degree of alignment between the senior leaders important constructs and their LCF within the five case study companies range between 50% and 80%. There are some competencies emphasized in the LCF that are not seen as important to the interviewees, for example, company B’s focus on customer was not mentioned by any senior global leader from the same company, and company D’s Maximizes Capabilities – team and talent development was only mentioned by 40% of the company D’s interviewees. At the same time, five key competencies (networking, charisma, communication skill, professional knowledge and cross-cultural insight) fall outside these frameworks, indicating a gap between the companies officially communicated leadership expectations and the actual leadership perspectives of the senior leaders. More importantly, among these five missing constructs, three (charisma, communication skill and professional knowledge) were identified as key constructs used by the senior global leaders to identify global leaders – but they are not in the companies’ LCF.

Table 3.

Summary of comparison between each senior global leader’s important constructs and their own company’s LCF.

Company	Overall degree of alignment (%)	Additional competencies to Leadership Framework (mentioned >50%)
A	66.70	Networking Charisma
B	50	Professional knowledge Communication skill
C	80	Communication skill Cross cultural insight
D	73	Communication skill Charisma
F	73

Note: Company E is missing from this table as they did not have a well-developed LCF (preferring greater flexibility in the leadership selection and development process) against which to compare individual’s constructions of leadership. However, they were included in the study as with rapid growth they realized the value of identifying their leadership expectations in order to improve their talent development and communication process.

Companies see the elements comprising their LCFs as indications of competency needed by their leaders: these are widely communicated and senior managers should be aware of their company’s LCF and are expected to use them in assessment and development. Some of the constructs used by senior leaders may be expressed in different terms to the LCF. For example, the LCF is unlikely to specify charisma, but the fact that senior leaders look for this but companies do not spell it out is important for managers who are trying to get to grips with expectations from different cultural settings. Charisma may be ‘coded’ – in terms of behaviours associated with it or be loaded into phrases around communication which may be understood to include ‘presence’ but not spelled out. Charisma is translated as an idealized influence, for example, in the transformational leadership literature. As most of the empirical studies have been conducted in the West, this concept is derived from the western leaders studied – so even if managers have never read the literature, we can be sure that in the culture charisma (or idealized influence) plays a part that may never be spelled out explicitly. These differences and nuances are therefore very important in non-western settings where shared assumptions cannot be guaranteed.

How do local Chinese managers construe leadership?

The data (comprising the individual leadership constructs used to discriminate global leaders, HPs and Others) of (29) high and (30) low potential middle-level Chinese managers were analysed separately to identify and compare commonalities and differences.

Among the 296 constructs elicited from HP managers, 132 were found to have higher importance (i.e. variability higher than average), suggesting these HP managers primarily use these constructs to construe leadership. At the same time, 140 out of 316 constructs were identified as important constructs by the low potential managers.

What are the commonalities and differences between the senior global leaders’ and Chinese managers’ leadership constructs?

Following the cross-grid analysis process, five constructs were identified as commonly shared key constructs of HP Chinese managers, these are collaborative style, professional knowledge and experience, visionary, can do attitude and confident. At the same time, seven key constructs were identified as commonly shared by low potential Chinese managers, which are as follows: drive to improve, professional knowledge and experience, ambitious, visionary, cross-cultural insight, visionary and confident and networking.

Figure 1 illustrates the overlap and differences between the Chinese managers’ and senior global leaders’ leadership constructs. One overlap shows that three constructs (professional knowledge and skills, visionary and confident) are commonly shared between Chinese managers and senior global leaders.

Figure 1.

Commonalities and differences in key constructs of Chinese managers and senior leaders.

During the interviews, the senior global leaders and Chinese managers produced the same construct labels in these three instances (professional knowledge and skills, visionary and confident). On elaborating these constructs in the interview, it became clear that the Chinese managers and senior global leaders attributed different meanings from one another to these particular constructs. While the constructs have superficial similarity on initial elicitation, there are significant differences in Chinese managers’ and senior global leaders’ definitions of these constructs. Their own construct labels properly represent how the interviewees described their constructs as they were elicited, and so are retained but the differences in definitions that emerged as they were elaborated were recorded. These differences are summarized in Table 4. For example, for Chinese managers, the construct professional knowledge and experiences also means solid educational background and fluent English communication – a leader without such competencies may not be seen as capable by Chinese managers, even if the senior global leaders may have a different view on the same individual. The different elaborations are important indicators that in some instances people may speak the same business language but mean different things.

Table 4.

Differences in definitions of construct categories.

Construct categories	Chinese managers definition	Senior global leaders definition
Collaborative style	Teamwork; cooperate and share with others; often for self and own department’s interests	Teamwork; cooperate and share with others
Professional knowledge and experience	Understand business with broad and deep knowledge, experience and skills; solid education background; fluent in English communication	Understand business with broad and deep knowledge, experience and skills
Ambitious	Always strive for higher goal in business performance and personal career	Always strive for high goal, better performance
Confident	Self assured; willing to speak out and unafraid of conflict; act decisively	Self assured; willing to speak out and unafraid of conflict

Collaborative is the only key construct commonly shared between HP managers and senior leaders, which echoes the finding above that senior global leaders largely distinguish HPs from their counterparts on the basis of collaborative style, intelligent, pragmatic and can-do attitude. However, while senior global leaders strongly emphasised teamwork in the construct collaborative, this research revealed that Chinese managers defined collaboration in an instrumental fashion (i.e. that collaboration should serve a clear purpose, being either to advance themselves in the eyes of their peers and superiors or to handle a task with others collaboratively for the good of their own department). This conditional interpretation of collaboration which might well reflect the competitive pressures under which Chinese leaders feel that they operate is a critical difference in meaning and in implied behaviour.

While two constructs (cross-cultural insight and drive to improve) are commonly shared between low potential managers and senior global leaders, neither was used by senior global leaders to identify leadership capability and potential.

Perhaps most significantly, half of the senior global leaders’ key constructs are not seen as important to Chinese managers. Fifty per cent (6 out of 12) of senior leaders’ key constructs are absent from those of the Chinese managers: communication, charisma, team development, creative, flexible and emotional intelligence. Of these constructs, charisma and communication skill were regarded as critical in how senior global leaders distinguish capable global leaders but not seen as important by Chinese managers.

Personal Construct Theory (PCT) (Kelly, 1955) suggests that individuals who generate more constructs are cognitively more complex in the specific domain elicited in the RGT, than those who generate fewer constructs. The data from this study reveal that Chinese managers do produce fewer constructs in the leadership domain than their (predominantly non-Chinese) senior global leaders: the average number of constructs elicited from Chinese managers was 10.3, which is 26% lower than the senior leaders’ 12.7. While cognitive complexity is not a measure of intelligence, this finding suggests that the Chinese managers’ view of leadership at this stage of their career may be less nuanced than the senior global leaders: this may be a reflection of their experience and may indicate an important development need not addressed through competence and skills training.

At the same time, compared with the senior leaders many fewer common constructs could be identified for the group of Chinese managers. While 52% (12 out of 23) constructs were identified as key for the senior global leaders group, only 28% and 44% (five and seven) key constructs could be identified for high/low potential Chinese manager groups, respectively. This provides an indication that there is much less consensus among Chinese managers in terms of how to construe leadership. Possible reasons include high turnover of the talent market and less working experience in a single company, leaving them less time to align their ILTs with the group.

There were eight Chinese senior global leaders who were ‘returnees’ to China having worked in other parts of the world. This was considered to be too small a sample to create a separate group in this study. However, when creating the cross-grid analysis, the researchers were alert to see if there were clear disparities between the Chinese returnees and the other global leaders. Their inspection suggested that they appeared to be well aligned with the other senior global leaders. Further research on changes in leadership constructs associated with global roles may therefore be fruitful in future studies.

Are the Chinese managers’ constructs aligned with their companies’ LCFs?

The high and low potential managers’ constructs were compared with the LCFs. The overall degree of alignment between high potential managers’ constructs and their own companies’ LCFs is between 35% and 66.7% (on average 44.5%), whilst for low potential managers it is between 20% and 55.5% (on average 42.8%). Further, seven constructs (five from HPs and two from low potentials) are commonly seen as important to the interviewees but not indicated in the LCFs. Table 5 summarizes the outcome of comparisons.

Table 5.

Summary of comparison between each high and low potential Chinese managers important constructs and their own companies’ LCF.

Interviewee	Company	Alignment degree (%)	Additional Competencies (mentioned >50%)
High potential chinese managers	A	66.7	– Strategic thinking – Networking
	B	35.0	– Professional knowledge and skill
	C	40.0	– Strategic thinking – Communication skill
	D	41.6
	F	40.0
Low potential chinese managers	A	50.0
	B	20.0
	C	45.0
	D	55.5	– Charisma – Organization savvy
	F	43.3

Moreover, the degree of alignment between interviewees’ constructs and most (54%) competencies in the LCF is below 40%, within which 13 competencies (26%) were not mentioned by any of the interviewees.

These results clearly suggest the companies’ messages relating to expected leadership competencies are misaligned with the middle-level (high or low potential) Chinese managers’ leadership constructs.

Discussion

Consistent with Manning’s (2003) observation of the similarity between the competencies of effective global leaders and those of transformational leaders, most of the key constructs used by senior global leaders in this study align with charismatic and/or transformational leadership. None align with transactional leadership. As such, according to ILT observations (e.g. Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord and Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 2001), these traditional western transformational/charismatic leadership theories play an important role when these senior leaders evaluate leadership capabilities and potential.

This research also shows that these Chinese managers underplay charismatic/transformational leadership when compared with the constructs of their senior counterparts and with those proposed as important leadership attributes in the global leadership literature. Six out of 12 (50%) of senior leaders’ key constructs are absent from those of the Chinese managers: communication, charisma, team development, creative, flexible and emotional intelligence.

Comparing the missing constructs with the four transformational leadership behaviours identified by Bass (1985) (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration), it appears that most of them can be categorized as transformational leadership characteristics. Further, comparing the key constructs identified in this study for Chinese managers with Kets de Vries’ (2004) GELI reveals that while there are some alignments between the GELI and Chinese managers’ key constructs identified in this study, the competencies empowering, energizing, team building and emotional intelligence described by GELI do not appear in Chinese managers’ key constructs. The study suggests that these Chinese managers do not perceive the importance of some transformational leadership constructs.

The difference between senior global leaders' and Chinese managers’ leadership constructs not only indicates a potential problem of Chinese managers’ career progress, it also challenges the notion (e.g. Manning, 2003) that the (western) charismatic/transformational leadership theories are applicable in a global context. Even though these western dominant leadership theories are aligned with the western global leaders' constructs, they may not be perceived as having the same importance to managers from another cultural environment.

This project found differences between the senior global leaders’ constructs and their company LCFs, and even greater gaps between the Chinese managers’ constructs and the same frameworks. More problematically, senior global leaders' three key constructs (charismatic, communication and professional knowledge) are not represented on their LCFs. This challenges the LCF approach: if MNCs use their LCFs to communicate and guide the employees’ leadership competency development while senior leaders use different criteria to evaluate candidates and decide promotions, it may create confusion. Specifically, this is likely to impact people who are struggling to grasp different cultural assumptions rather more than those whose cultural background is similar to their leaders.

There were several potential reasons for this misalignment. In one company, the comparison was between a newly launched leadership framework comprising espoused leadership characteristics and leaders’ implicit constructs acquired over many years of experience, training and exposure to previous leadership frameworks. Equally it is possible that these senior global leaders having worked in China for an average of five years had been influenced by Chinese culture, and in that sense their implicit constructs may differ from those espoused in ‘pure western-centric’ leadership frameworks. This could also account for why the construct ‘cross cultural insight’ is a key construct of interviewees but does not appear in their companies’ LCFs.

Despite these potential additional explanations, the findings here support the growing body of concerns about the efficacy of LCFs in developing leadership effectiveness and specifically echo the critique that they are unlikely to reflect the organization’s implicit/unconscious leadership concept (Probert and Turnbull James, 2011). As Hollenbeck et al. (2006: 341) pointed out: ‘As we look across the business scene, we see little evidence that these systems (LCFs), in place for years now, are producing more and better leaders in organizations’. The findings in this research have confirmed that, despite most of the companies using an LCF as an important method in leadership communication and development for many years, the competencies described in their LCFs may not align with the local Chinese managers’ leadership constructs. This evidence suggests that a more fundamental review of the LCF is required.

This research provides an in-depth understanding of the Chinese managers’ leadership constructs in MNC environment. However, these findings are not in line with some influential cross-culture leadership literature. In contrast to Hofstede’s (1980) research on the IBM global organization which found that Chinese managers were rated much lower than UK and US managers in individualism, this research finds that these Chinese managers imbued the construct ‘collaborative’ with a specific meaning which has definite individualistic focus (specifically, it means either to advance themselves in the eyes of their peers and superiors, or work together with others collaboratively to achieve their own/teams’ objectives). Linking this element with other key constructs of the Chinese managers such as can-do attitude and aggressiveness, it may indicate that while the new generation of Chinese managers in MNCs is still focusing on ‘relationships’, they consider such relationships in service of individuals’ objectives (i.e. an individualistic perspective). This finding reinforces Ralston et al.’s (1999) earlier observation of an emergent tendency towards individualism among new generation Chinese managers, hence can be seen as an update of Hofstede’s cross-culture research.

Further, in contrast to the GLOBE (e.g. House et al., 2004) project finding that Chinese managers scored lower on enthusiastic, risk taking and ambitious, this research which shows Chinese managers key constructs include can do attitude, ambitious, drive to improve and confident suggests that Chinese managers in these MNCs perceive those constructs to be very important and would not score them low. These conflicting findings could be explained by company type. While the GLOBE project conducted research in local Chinese companies, Chinese managers participating in this research had been socialized in an MNC environment and so may not share the same leadership constructs as those operating in local Chinese organizations. This suggests that given the complexity of the China environment, the findings of GLOBE cannot (and should not) be generalized to other types of organizations in China. This has implications for future research on Chinese leadership and may be relevant for research in other parts of the world where there is concern that western leadership models are insufficient for understanding leadership in different national or cultural contexts: types of organizations forming the database should be reported and the differences, if any, explored.

This research also identified that Chinese managers produce fewer constructs about leadership than the senior global leaders. Previous research has found that global leaders, rather than domestic leaders, learn new ways of perceiving the cross-cultural environment and new ways of reacting within it: ‘They have become more complex, more connected, and more personal as the basis for their consistently impressive business results’ (Lynton and Thogersen, 2006: 170) and this is reflected in the senior global leaders' constructs here. From a PCT perspective, having a comprehensive, well-articulated view of leadership is important in producing a wider rather than narrow repertoire of choices in a leadership context as the individual has more dimensions available to differentiate others’ behaviour (Bieri, 1955) and a less categorical black–white perceptions of few but rigid rules of integration (Larson and Rowland, 1974). If Chinese managers have a narrower view than the senior global leaders, this could be an important departure for leadership development intervention helping them into senior roles. If global rather domestic leaders have more complex understanding of leadership, there is a danger of ‘chicken and egg’ problems of selection for promotion. This research suggests that one potential development intervention is that Chinese leaders may need wider business experiences, perhaps on the global stage, at an earlier point in their career in order to develop more nuanced or complex understandings of leadership required at senior global leaders levels. A useful direction for future research would be to study a larger sample of Chinese managers who have worked more extensively internationally to discover how this impacts their leadership constructs compared with other global senior leaders and local Chinese managers.

Conclusions

Most of the global leader studies have identified global leadership profiles on the basis of responses of leaders from companies’ headquarters in America and Europe (Vilkinas et al., 2009). As a result, the literature offers little insight into how global leadership requirements are perceived in MNCs as they operate in other countries. ILT (e.g. Lord and Emrich, 2000; Schyns, 2006) suggests leaders rely upon their leadership constructs to evaluate leadership capabilities and decide promotions and not just on corporate frameworks.

This study of global leadership explored China as a specific example of the complications arising for MNCs operating in diverse contexts. In this study, which elicited implicitly held leadership constructs, it was found that Chinese managers were either unaware of some important key constructs of the senior global leaders, or did not share the same understanding of these constructs. Furthermore, the gaps and misalignments identified in this research between LCFs and both senior global leaders and middle level Chinese managers constructions of leadership not only challenge the utilization of the LCF as a major communication and leadership developmental tool in MNCs, but also provide potential explanations for the slow career progress of local (Chinese) managers.

Leaders need to be seen to exemplify their organization’s specified competency, behaviours and values expressed in the LCF, the use of which have become ubiquitous and rarely challenged. They are meant to guide leadership development and assessment practice. However, because people bring prior experiences and ideas about leadership derived from personal history and their culture of origin, individuals and groups can hold implicit theories of what leaders do and how they behave and what is important for success and these theories influence their view and assessment of leadership potential. Implicit constructs of leadership are rarely examined rigorously but are arguably influential in evaluating whether an individual’s behaviour equates to ‘what leadership should look like’. Alignment may occur between the leader’s personal leadership values; individual team member’s implicit ideals of leadership and the organizational leadership framework, particularly when everyone is drawn from the same culture, locality or country. In this circumstance, implicit/explicit and personal/organizational views of leadership may all coincide sufficiently for individuals to agree what good leadership is and who enacts ‘leadership’.

However, many organizations do not operate in circumstances of such relatively aligned environments. MNCs, for example, attempt to create an international culture which specifies the organization values, but in addition often embraces the idea of ‘think global, act local’ or even ‘glocal’. This may be hard enough to achieve with a marketing campaign but is much more problematic with leadership. Local managers must manage their staff with local expectations for staff to perceive them as leaders. At the same time, they must prove to senior global leaders that they can take up roles on the global stage. If LCFs do not explicitly reflect the implicit constructs in play and those which are shared superficially are lacking in deep shared meaning, then local managers experience ambiguity about expectations in excess of managers elsewhere who align more closely with their senior colleagues. MNCs looking to develop Chinese leaders may need to look for more than cultural sensitivity in their senior global leaders: these leaders may need to understand local constructions of leadership to recognize leadership potential. Chinese managers seeking global leadership roles will need to do more than demonstrate leadership in their own terms or the official leadership statements made by their organizations, but learn to understand the unspoken demands of leadership in a global context.

Footnotes

Author biographies

Lake Wang has been working in the human resources field in multinational companies for over 20 years. Currently, he is the Global HR head for BP Lubricants business. Prior to that, he was HR head of BP Global Petrochemicals Business and BP China and the HR Vice President of A.P. Moller Maersk, Greater China. He received his doctorate degree from Cranfield University, UK, in 2012.

Kim Turnbull James is Professor of Executive Learning at the Cranfield School of Management. Her research focuses on the political and emotional dynamics impacting leaders and on understanding how leadership is embedded and practiced in complex organizational contexts requiring an understanding of ‘non-rational’ organizational dynamics. This perspective informs Kim's leadership development work; executive coaching, consulting to executive teams and senior executive development programmes. Kim has worked with a wide range of organizations, including major corporates in the automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, insurance and banking industries as well as public service organizations, such as police, local authorities and the health service and major consultancies.

David Denyer is Professor of Organizational Change and Director of Research at the Cranfield School of Management. His research focuses on leadership, change, resilience and evidence-based management. He helps senior leaders in a wide range of organizations to establish strategic direction and deliver sustained high performance. David is a founding member of the International Evidence-based Management Collaborative, a Fellow of the Advanced Institute of Management Research and is a Member of Council of the British Academy of Management. His recent research on how organizations can better respond to adverse events was selected by the Academy of Social Sciences as an exemplar of social science research that has made a difference to policy and practice. He has published a large number of important and highly cited articles and book chapters. David regularly speaks at international conferences and high profile events.

Catherine Bailey is Senior Lecturer in the Centre for General Management Development at the Cranfield School of Management. Her research and teaching interest is in business and strategic leadership in complex environments, executive teams and executive development. She acts as a consultant internationally in executive leadership development and coaching of senior executives. She has worked in the aerospace industry. Her consultancy experience is across the private sector including aviation, pharmaceuticals, construction, power generation, insurance, oil and gas, as well as in public sector utilities, health, regulation, nuclear and in the not-for-profit sector.

References

Alimo-Metcalfe

(1995) An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment. Women in Management Review 10(2): 3–8.

Alimo-Metcalfe

(1998) 360 Degree feedback and leadership development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 6(1): 35–44.

Alimo-Metcalfe

Alban-Metcalfe

(2001) The development of a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74(1): 1–27.

Alimo-Metcalfe

Alban-Metcalfe

(2005) Leadership: time for a new direction? Leadership 1(1): 51–71.

Alban-Metcalfe

Alimo-Metcalfe

(2000) An Analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of the transformational leadership questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8(3): 158–175.

Avolio

Bass

Jung

(2010) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72(4): 441–462.

Bartlett

Ghoshal

(1992) What is a global manager? Harvard Business Review 70: 124–132.

Bass

(1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bass

(1997) Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist 52(2): 130–139.

10.

Bass

(1998) Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11.

Bass

Avolio

(1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Bieri

(1955) Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 263–268.

13.

Bolden

Gosling

(2006) Leadership competencies: Time to change the tune? Leadership 2(2): 147–163.

14.

Boyatzis

(1982) The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, New York: NY Wiley.

15.

Boydell

Burgoyne

Pedler

(2004) Suggested development. People Management 2(26): 32–34.

16.

Brown

Lord

(2001) Leadership and perceiver cognition: Moving beyond first order constructs. In: Manuel

(eds) How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 181–202.

17.

Bryman

(1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, London: Sage.

18.

Burns

(1978) Leadership, New York, NY: Harper and Row.

19.

Campbell

(2006) Globalization: The basic principles of leadership are universal and timeless. In: Mobley

Weldon

(eds) Advances in Global Leadership Vol. 4, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 143–160.

20.

Carroll

Levy

Richmond

(2008) Leadership as practice: Challenging the competency paradigm. Leadership 4(4): 363–379.

21.

Che

Brown

Lian

(2011) Distal charismatic leadership and follower effects: An examination of Conger and Kanugo’s conceptualization of charisma in China. Leadership 7(3): 251–273.

22.

Den Hartog

House

Hanges

(1999) Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorses? Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 219–256.

23.

Dickson

Hanges

Lord

(2001) Trends, developments and gaps in cross-cultural research on leadership. Advances in Global Leadership 2: 75–100.

24.

Eden

Leviathan

(1975) Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 736–741.

25.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2004) Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied Psychology 89(2): 293–293.

26.

Farrell D and Grant A (2005) Addressing China’s Looming Talent Shortage. McKinsey Global Institute.

27.

Fransella

Bannister

(1977) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, London: Academic Press.

28.

Fransella

Bannister

Bell

(2004) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique, John Wiley: Chichester.

29.

Goffin

Lemke

Szwejczewski

(2006) An exploratory study of close supplier-manufacturer relationships. Journal of Operations Management 24: 189–209.

30.

Goldsmith

Greenberg

Roberston

(2003) Global leadership: The next generation, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

31.

Goodall

Warner

(2006) Expatriate managers in china: The influence of Chinese culture on cross-cultural management. Journal of General Management 32(2): 57–57.

32.

Griffin

Neal

Parker

(2007) A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 327–347.

33.

Guthey E and Jackson B (2011) Cross-cultural leadership revisited. In: Bryman A, Collinson DL, Grint K and Jackson B (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, Chap. 12. London, UK: Sage, 165–178.

34.

Han

Chiang

Chang

(2010) Employee participation in decision-making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing; mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(12): 2218–2233.

35.

Hofstede

(1980) Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values, London: Sage.

36.

Hollenbeck

McCalljr

Silzer

(2006) Leadership competency models. The Leadership Quarterly 17(4): 398–413.

37.

House

Javidan

Hangers

(2002) Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe, an introduction to Project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37: 3–10.

38.

House

Javidan

Hangers

(2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

House

Aditya

(1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management 23(3): 409–473.

40.

Jankowicz

(2004) Easy Guide to Repertory Grids, Chichester: John Wiley.

41.

Kelly

(1955) The psychology of personal constructs: Volume one – A theory of personality, London: Routledge.

42.

Kets de Vries MFR Vrignaud P and Florent-Treacy E (2004) The Global Leadership Life Inventory: development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree feedback instrument. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(3): 475–492.

43.

Konrad

(2000) Implicit leadership theories in Eastern and Western Europe. Social Science Information 39(2): 335–347.

44.

Lakey

(2007) East meets west: Chinese leadership research. Journal of Intercultural Communication Studies 16(2): 126–135.

45.

Langan-Fox

Tan

(1997) Images of a culture in transition: Personal constructs of organizational stability. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70: 273–293.

46.

Larson

Rowland

(1974) Leadership style and cognitive complexity. The Academy of Management Journal 17(1): 37–45.

47.

Laulusa

(2008) Confucianism and its implications for industrial relations in China. Journal of Management Spirituality and Religion 5(4): 385–403.

48.

Ling

Chia

Fang

(2000) Chinese implicit leadership theory. Journal of Social Psychology 140: 729–739.

49.

Ling

(1989) Pattern of leadership behavior assessment in China. Psychologia 32(2): 129–134.

50.

Littrell

(2002) Desirable leadership behaviours of multi-cultural managers in China. The Journal of Management Development 21(1): 5–5.

51.

Lord

Brown

Harvey

(2001) Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly 12(3): 311–338.

52.

Lord

Emrich

(2000) Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly 11(4): 551–551.

53.

Lord

Maher

(1991) Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance, London: Routledge.

54.

Lynton

Thogersen

(2006) How China transforms and executive’s mind. Organizational Dynamics 35(2): 170–181.

55.

Manning

(2003) Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(3): 20–20.

56.

McElhatton

Jackson

(2012) Paradox in harmony: Formulating a Chinese model of leadership. Leadership 8(4): 441–461.

57.

Mendenhall

(2008) Leadership and the birth of global leadership. In: Mendenhall

Osland

Bird

(eds) Global Leadership: Research, Practice and Development, London: Routledge, pp. 1–17.

58.

Mercer (2008) Attraction and Retention in China. Survey Report.

59.

Miao

Newman

Lamb

(2012) Transformational leadership and work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: The mediating effects of identification with the leader. Leadership 8(4): 377–395.

60.

Misumi

(1985) The Behavioral Science of Leadership, English ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

61.

Munir

Nielsen

Randall

(2009) The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies 46: 1236–1244.

62.

Oddou

Mendenhall

(1998) Cases in International Organizational Behavior, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

63.

Osland

Oddou

Bird

(2008) Global Leadership in Context (Working paper), San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.

64.

Paine

(2010) The Chinese rules. Harvard Business Review 88(6): 103–107.

65.

Pittinsky

Zhu

(2005) Contemporary public leadership in China: A research review and consideration. Leadership Quarterly 16(6): 921–939.

66.

Poole

Gioia

Gray

(1989) Influence modes, schema change and organization transformation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 25: 271–289.

67.

Prince

(2005) Eating the menu rather than the dinner: Tao and leadership. Leadership 1(1): 105–126.

68.

Probert

Turnbull James

(2011) Leadership development: Crisis, opportunities and the leadership concept. Leadership 7(2): 137–150.

69.

Ralston

Egri

Stewart

(1999) Doing business in the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: a study of generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of International Business Studies 30(2): 415–427.

70.

Robie

Johnson

Nilsen

(2001) The right stuff: Understanding cultural differences in leadership performance. The Journal of Management Development 20(7/8): 639–639.

71.

Rush

Russell

JEA

(1988) Leader prototypes and prototype-contingent consensus in leader behavior descriptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24: 88–104.

72.

Schuler

Jackson

(1987) Linking competitive strategies with the human resource management practices. The Academy of Management Executive 1(3): 207–219.

73.

Schyns

(2006) The role of implicit leadership theories in the performance appraisals and promotion recommendations of leaders. Equal Opportunities International 25(3): 188–199.

74.

Selvarajah

Meyer

(2008) Profiling the Chinese manager: exploring dimensions that relate to leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 29(4): 359–375.

75.

Taormina

Selvarajah

(2005) Perceptions of leadership excellence in ASEAN nations. Leadership 1(3): 299–322.

76.

Tsui

Wang

Xin

(2004) Variation of leadership styles among Chinese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics 33(1): 5–10.

77.

Vilkinas

Shen

Cartan

(2009) Predictors of leadership effectiveness for Chinese managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 30(6): 577–590.

78.

Wang

(2003) Managerial competency modeling: a structural equations analysis. Psychology Science 6: 420–428.

79.

Wang

Clegg

(2007) Managing to lead in private enterprise in China: Work values, demography and the development of trust. Leadership 3(2): 149–172.

80.

Yukl

(2006) Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice‐Hall.