Leadership, Culture, and the Big Picture: Fixed or Dynamic?

“Lewin viewed the social environment as a dynamic field which impacted in an interactive way with human consciousness. Adjust elements of the social environment and particular types of psychological experience predictably ensue. In turn, the person’s psychological state influences the social field or milieu.” (Neill, 2004)

Leadership is widely and enthusiastically pursued construct that has been predominately defined from a western mindset, but as the world becomes a smaller place, does this limit our understanding of its application among various cultures? Recent research by Jepson (2009), proposed that while fixed or quantitative research has added a wealth of knowledge to our understanding, when generalized to every interaction there can be difficulties. She proposed an interactive approach that is more “dynamic.” Her “interactional approach to the cross-country study of leadership” (Jepson, 2009, p. 67) involved the following three areas:
• Micro-level Context: Followers, Colleagues, Superiors, Organization, Industry etc.
• National Context: Educational system, history, language, etc.
• Individual Context: Experience, knowledge, needs, etc.

Each of these circles of influence had an impact on the leader’s specific behaviors. Similar to the quote about Kurt Lewin that initiated this post, she proposed the impact to be an interaction of various dynamic variables.

One emphasis made by Jepson (2009) was relative to language and communication on the definition of leadership, and the difference in these among the two cultures studied. For example, the UK sample stated the importance of leaders with the attributes of coaching and supportive; however, the German participants defined an emphasis on skills, education, and expertise balanced with “social competence” (p.72). This dynamic can also be seen even within an organization when communicating among different professionals (e.g. ever seen a mechanic trying to communicate with an IT professional about a problem they are having inputting maintenance data? It can be as if two different languages were spoken even though both are speaking the same language). This begs the question as to understanding the people you lead and what their concept of your role as a leader should be. You can know everything about being a good leader, but if your followers have a different expectation as to what you should be doing then what do you feel the result will be if these are not attended to?

While Jepson (2009) only studied two cultures, there was adequate information to validate the probability that leadership is a dynamic process involving interaction between various social contexts and the individual. I believe her concluding statement says it all:

It may be concluded that whilst quantitative-based studies into leadership across countries are valuable and provide easily accessible and practical advice for global leadership development, they bear significant limitations that hinder an in-depth understanding of the interactional nature of leadership and its context. Hence, more research is now needed that adopts a dynamic, interactional approach looking at leadership in different countries in order to avoid overly stereotypical treatment of leadership and culture, and to improve our understanding of variation in leadership behaviour within a specific country. (p. 77)

Jepson, D. (2009). Studying leadership at cross-country level: A critical analysis. Leadership, 5, pp. 61-81.

Neill, J. (2004). Field Theory: Kurt Lewin. Retrieved on 4 November 2009 from http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html