There is no doubt that culture remains one of the core determinants of leadership styles. In this case, culture is defined as a set of ideas, beliefs, values, traditions, and rituals that are exhibited by a community or a population. Studies on leadership have identified a strong correlation between leadership practices and their effectiveness in the cultural paradigm in which they are exercised (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010). Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, developed a framework for cross-cultural communication known as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. The six dimensions in Hofstede’s model can be used to explore the differences in the culture of leadership between the U.S. and India. We chose India for the comparative analysis
…show more content…
when it comes to the dimension of power distance (Juhasz, 2011). Essentially, the Power Distance Index (PDI) refers to the extent to which a society accepts or accommodates uneven distribution of power and resources. The score of 61 implies that an uneven distribution of power is acceptable in India and that a clear hierarchy has been established. It also indicates big communication gap between superiors and their subordinates. In the context of culture and leadership, Indians expect leaders to be highly powerful figures who exercise unquestionable authority over their followers. On the other hand, followers expect leaders to give directions in all situations and to determine the direction of their organizations. The high power distance index also implies that the Indian society, including the less powerful members of business organizations, have endorsed power that is not distributed equally. This situation is different in the U.S. where the power distance index stands at 40. In the American culture, leadership is characterized by unrestricted interactions of organizations’ employees and leaders across power levels. Compared to India, fewer rules of interactions across power levels exist in the American culture (Tripathi & Cervone, 2008). American workers often question authority and attempt to distribute power. For instance, when confronted by a software design problem, leaders in the U.S. will be more …show more content…
Hofstede conceives Short-term/Long-term Orientation (LTO) as an association between the link of the past with the current and future actions/challenges. In this dimension, India’s score is 61 while the U.S. scores 29. The high index for India means that the society views adaptation and circumstantial, pragmatic problem-solving as a necessity to achieve their goals and objectives. It can also mean that the culture is parsimonious or perseverant, meaning they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future. In terms of leadership, India’s high score is predictive of a leadership style that is driven by a long-term vision. In India, leaders strive to establish trust with their followers and other key stakeholders (Carroll & Patterson, 2014). Here, the belief is that when an organization invests in people, they get more empowered to perform their tasks and this leads to long-term success. Equally notable, business continuity is an important driver of decision-making in India’s context. In the Indian culture, business leaders strive to establish networks and connections with other business leaders because these relations would help them to secure business deals in the future (Fang, 2003). On the other hand, the short-term orientation of the U.S. indicates leaders are generally less willing to accept present losses in exchange for
when it comes to the dimension of power distance (Juhasz, 2011). Essentially, the Power Distance Index (PDI) refers to the extent to which a society accepts or accommodates uneven distribution of power and resources. The score of 61 implies that an uneven distribution of power is acceptable in India and that a clear hierarchy has been established. It also indicates big communication gap between superiors and their subordinates. In the context of culture and leadership, Indians expect leaders to be highly powerful figures who exercise unquestionable authority over their followers. On the other hand, followers expect leaders to give directions in all situations and to determine the direction of their organizations. The high power distance index also implies that the Indian society, including the less powerful members of business organizations, have endorsed power that is not distributed equally. This situation is different in the U.S. where the power distance index stands at 40. In the American culture, leadership is characterized by unrestricted interactions of organizations’ employees and leaders across power levels. Compared to India, fewer rules of interactions across power levels exist in the American culture (Tripathi & Cervone, 2008). American workers often question authority and attempt to distribute power. For instance, when confronted by a software design problem, leaders in the U.S. will be more …show more content…
Hofstede conceives Short-term/Long-term Orientation (LTO) as an association between the link of the past with the current and future actions/challenges. In this dimension, India’s score is 61 while the U.S. scores 29. The high index for India means that the society views adaptation and circumstantial, pragmatic problem-solving as a necessity to achieve their goals and objectives. It can also mean that the culture is parsimonious or perseverant, meaning they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future. In terms of leadership, India’s high score is predictive of a leadership style that is driven by a long-term vision. In India, leaders strive to establish trust with their followers and other key stakeholders (Carroll & Patterson, 2014). Here, the belief is that when an organization invests in people, they get more empowered to perform their tasks and this leads to long-term success. Equally notable, business continuity is an important driver of decision-making in India’s context. In the Indian culture, business leaders strive to establish networks and connections with other business leaders because these relations would help them to secure business deals in the future (Fang, 2003). On the other hand, the short-term orientation of the U.S. indicates leaders are generally less willing to accept present losses in exchange for