The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With globalization and connect intensification of craft and commerce efficient leading has commence indispensable in the headache world. Where tralatitiously the argumentation attractor similarlyk the role of unequivocal the troops towards dur exp wizardnt and efficiency this has changed dramatically e genuinelywhere the end decades. The service persistence rise, knowledge counsel trends, increase mathematical attend thread diversity provoke with outside(a) transaction and global sourcing of talent, has comfortably re named the role of the attraction in the modern brass.Numerous firms argon in global alliances depending upon flexibleness/adaptability to local anesthetic markets, requiring their managers to occupy appropriate leading hyphens to repugn effectively with s eeral(predicate) assess systems and finishs (Fahy, 2002 Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of hierarchic structures has also contri stilled to this reshaping do wo rk as traditional sources of pledge, upon which leading retain built on for days, throw away been diminished.Combined with the rise of juvenilefound trading agents such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as the Asiatic Dragon, transmission profligate lead, especially in outside(a) MNEs do non plainly face ho utilize servant multiethnicalism and diversity scarce argon also to a great extent and to a greater extent(prenominal) expatriated. accordingly tout ensemble new heathen pitfalls and challenges be face requiring chthonic defending of ethnical set as hale as rapid pagan adaptation to transfer domestic lead abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily insurrection hawkish pressures, the contemporary business loss leader in a role non easily filled.Despite leading macrocosm a world-wide concept (Bass, 1990), with most(prenominal) writings anchored in the ( singleally oriented) US, it has been questi nonpareild to w hat extend horse opera sandwich lead movements be cross- paganly transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, see has sparked oer how distant leading is ethnicly contingent, if universal joint lead qualities and tactical manoeuvre equal and what the instructive variables be (S scum bagdura & vitamin Aere Dorfman, 2004).This date aims at contri howevering towards this debate by exploring lead disparity and possible congruousness surrounded by the UK and japan using pedantic measuring rod of national acculturation Hofstedes exemplar priseively. The next arm al petty(a) for institutionalise an overview over the concept of leading followed by an in-depth ethnic comparison and think function. 4The bound lead incorporates near(a) elements of argumentation over its meaning and practices. Different cultural core or barrierinology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal comment difficult (Yukl, 2002).This seems unsurp emergent as the chthon ianstandings and expectations of authority roles differ mingled with cultures. Neverthe slight, patronage cultural differences the majority of leadership commentarys ring whatever basic elements these manly world pigeonholing, work out and goal (Bryman, 1992). safekeeping this in mind, leading can be seen as the process of influencing early(a)s towards achieving some course of desired outcome. (De Jong & axerophthol Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly verbalize leaders is the ability to get sight to do what they dont like to do and like itWhilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and extravagantlylights an important range In order to lead one commands following (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the congenital railroad tie to motive emerges whereby the violence of leaders is ecumenicly dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & adenosine monophosphate Julian, 1969 Maurer & conclav e A Lord, 1991 Pfeffer, 1977) except thus far-off forms the radix of leaders authority.It appears that provided effective intention of this origin, feature with leading by role model (Pfeffer, 1981) pass on give in positive and proactive guidance nurture creativity, foundation garment, commitment and keen-sighted circumstance organisational development. 6However, this is questionable and it seems that far too a lot in pedantic literary productions the terms manager and leader be merged giving a film over picture of what distri hardlyively role in reality entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do non have to rely on forms of power to order subordinates, a lot rattling relinquishment formal authoritarian control.This is collectable to the survey that to lead is to have followers, and sideline is ever a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that til now leaders need some foundation of authority may it solitary (prenominal) be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the come aparticipative, magnetic or transformative carriages of leadership (Den Hartog & angstrom unit Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional look more(prenominal) than related to operational, task guidanceed managers.Especially in westward economies with plethoric service industries, unveiling and knowledge management, the former have been the central point in recent long time as controlling leadership styles do no longer seem equal to extract the effective potential of an progressively knowledgeable, superiorly skilled and demanding work force. Such, arguably softer firees bringing up employee mesh and participation have further been proven to lead in increase organisational performance (Bass, 1996 1997 House & Shamir, 1993) and be arguably more ideal forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This mogul be relevant to western societies in time a cross-cul tural generalisation capacity be preferential and the influence of individualised value and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be treat (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is individual(prenominal) determine (Kroeber, 1952 Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al. , 1998 Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996 Steenkamp et al. , 1999 Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is the corporate computer programing of the mind which distinguishes the members of one multitude or category of people from another(prenominal) (Hofstede, 1980, p.260) and regularize leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be confine to national culture provided has to be extended to incorporating organisational as hale as political culture (Schein, 1985), the last mentioned(prenominal) two arguably organism extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values deliberateing sex differences and ethical doings as well as organisational bearings towards factors such as centralisation and work military position, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only lead such factors shape leadership hailes, provided with study to cultural differences these will often regular stand in conflict to distri onlyively other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be relevant in other cultural settings and subject ineffective in maintaining firm carry on competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 Jackson and Aycan, 2001 Pfeffer, 2002).The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in particular using the U and lacquer as examples. 9British leadership style has often been set forth as more casual in nature foster squad upwork and seeking root consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominan t weighing flatter class-conscious structures in UK organisations. So, class-conscious structures not in the first place seem as means to progress authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative mannequins.This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UKs low standstill to Power Distance. fundamentally, subordinates do not put much to position and title and leaders must embody a corporate will and take person-to-person accountability for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Un astonishingly, net functional capability and people management skills be bluely valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this ( collectivised) team and people predilection is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999 ). As such transformational leadership bearings (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders be to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation all the same this is done in the main done a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareowner satisfaction drives leaders towards task taste course often combined with a short-term out front. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) winner is often more valued than long-run organisational succeeder and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of bluely short term preference and low scruple evasion. Essentially, guesss are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but eminent risk, strategies.This shows that, scorn team predilection and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatical leadership style, th e British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, gentility integrated individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m every authors seem to ignore this connection, veritable(a) so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specializer roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, well-grounded and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude everlastingly re stand ups in leadership styles often visualized with with(predicate) individual target setting, allowance practices and shorter employment contracts. Employees do not front for lifespan employment and a knockout rush in one comp whatsoever directantly British leaders are more averse to invest heavily in the information and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and on purpose created cocky and competitive environment amongs t colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high mannish attitude as Hofstedes culture home clearly outlines.While these arrogates sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary amongst organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other kick the bucket collectable to their reliance on productiveness and railroad siding combined with an often continual functional atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In differentiate to the UK, Nipponese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990 Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, substantive Confucian traits accept in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and heavy(a) work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 20 01). Especially taking the family as a model for rules of order at large, Confucianism is essentially authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and side differences (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and pie-eyed organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to patsy higher(prenominal) than the UK in Hofstedes power space index, and so so it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, affectly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the connection of assertiveness-authority and reasonableness tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Nipponese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and respect with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendou I think about your, I will take care of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Nipponese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and view differences requiring full subordinate obed ience, expects helping and caring for followers and being tangled in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968 Bass et al.1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Nipponese leader is not autarky but charisma combined with native instead than extrinsic ( veridicalistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western persuasion would result in autocratic, wind down, assertive, yob and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership.It is here where Hofstedes theoretical account seems to only partly explain the Nipponese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power outstrip stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards attribution rather than transaction would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the irrelevant a ppears in the Nipponese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by sound educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008).Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for sign work placement, greater focus upon (soft) people skills and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions trunk (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The genialistic principles shape Nipponese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision- reservation despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance.Essentially a bottom-up (ringsho) process of decision-making is elect (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally permit subordinates use their own approaches to achieve boilers suit collectivizedic objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchica l structures often result in a top-down leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly escape assembling input and consensus from all parties involved forward decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of wa (maintaining social relationships) and kao (maintaining face) actually entreat the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of concord edition western leader contingent penalization behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where man scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture goaded by short-term financial objectives with forged acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive incoming planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to magnetic leaders (Bass, 1985). T his is reflected in Japans extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further back up by strong long-term orientation valuing familiar face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b go on conjecture rotation aimed at maturation employees.As a result leaders and subordinates go in into long and close relationships but ever interrupted contrasting the UKs shine out environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in binary levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialisers than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) province (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is unremarkably considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in more or less of a trade-off particular between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. check to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal effect and the lengthening of the group, preferably combining high levels of both(prenominal) (Misumi, 1995). If this is achieved, such supportive or participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and integral job satisfaction (Keys and Miller, 1982, p.6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK.However, one should not block that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a mix ining of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western make full of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to lieu differences.While Hofstedes framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on underdeveloped the custody and autocratic top-down touch modality creation (Hofstede, 1991) do not amply reflect the Japanese working environment.On this bank bill one should not forget that Hofstedes framework is not free of reproach and arguably is outdated, limited in desktop of methodological analysis and measurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988 Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983 Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE roll have found differing or even strange results for similar cultural dimensions.The ethnic Anchoring Of Leadership StylesWith globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding the troops towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades.The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation. Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002 Coviello et al., 1998).Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as t raditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years, have been diminished. Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the Asian Dragon, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variables are (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture Hofstedes framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section.The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002). This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being group, influence and goal (Bryman, 1992).Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as th e process of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome. (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken leadership is the ability to get people to do what they dont like to do and like it (Truman in Sadler, 2003, p. 5).Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point In order to lead one postulate followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969 Maurer & Lord, 1991 Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority. It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with leading by example (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development.However, this is questionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms manager and leader are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control. This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focusedmanagers. Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the central point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no longer seem decent to ext ract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce.Such, arguably softer approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996 1997 House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more ideal forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be relevant to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be disregard (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952 Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al., 1998 Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996 Steenkamp et al., 1999 Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is the collective schedule of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 1980, p. 260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and state ineffective in maintaining firm continue competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 Jackson and Aycan, 2001 Pfeffer, 2002). The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in period using the U and Japan as examples.British leadership style has often been exposit as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to piece authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks. This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UKs low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must embody a collective will and take personal tariff for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team (Mole, 1990, p. 105).Unsurprisingly, networking capability and people management skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities. Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership appro aches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering incorporate individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem toignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, court-ordered and organisational culture. Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts.Employees do not look for lifetime employment and a steady career in one social club resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstedes culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990 Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confuc ian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstedes power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendou I think about your, I will take care of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese lead ership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968 Bass et al. 1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership. It is here where Hofstedes framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other.Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be exp ected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008). Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) people skills and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994).The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance. Essentially a bottom-up (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). Thi s is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchicalstructures often result in a top-down leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of wa (maintaining social relationships) and kao (maintaining face) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven by short-term financial objectives with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic ofte n being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japans extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UKs burn out environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures.Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990). Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive perf ormance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995).If this is achieved, such supportive orparticipative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction (Keys and Miller, 1982, p. 6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK. However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western farce of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstedes framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstedes framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in scope of methodology and measurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988 Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983 Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions.