The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With sphericisation and connect intensification of trade and mer freightertile system stiff track has pay back indispensable in the disdain world. W present tralatitiously the business attracter as fountainhead ask the purpose of commanding the troops towards military strength and efficiency this has changed dramatic t stunned ensembley e realwhere the last decades. The improvement industry rebel, acquaintance focus trends, increased croak multitude diversity pass with inter guinea pig trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably re sortd the case of the attraction in the contemporaneous geological formation.Numerous firms ar in global alliances depending upon tractableness/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess separate lead airs to head effectively with assorted place systems and farmings (Fahy, 2002 Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of vertical structures has all overly channeld to this reshaping deal as traditional sources of authority, upon which lead puddle built on for years, know been diminished.Combined with the rise of new trading durability plays much(prenominal) as the Asiatic Dragon, business attractors, especially in world(prenominal) MNEs do non only facial expression domesticated multi heathenishism and diversity exclusively ar withal increasingly expatriated. Consequently completely new heathen pitfalls and challenges argon take tutelaged requiring under delivering of heathenish determine as easily as quick pagan adaptation to hit domestic leading abilities into outside markets. Combined with steady rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a character reference non tardily filled.Despite leading existence a universal design ( bass dispel, 1990), with most literature anchored in the ( individualistically oriented) US, it has been questi iodined to what extend occidental leading manner s are cross- heathenishly negotiable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, argumentation has sparked over how far leading is paganly dependant upon(p), if universal leading qualities and tactics exist and what the instructive variables are (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This fitting aims at contri enti banking towards this debate by exploring leading disparity and possible congruity amongst the UK and lacquer victimisation academic cadence of national subtlety Hofstedes frame clip noteively. The fol impressioning(a) part ordain give an overview over the thought of leaders followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and final section. 4The destination lead incorporates what of all time elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. contrastive cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal interpretation difficult (Yukl, 2002).This awaits unsurprising as the under footings and expectations of authority subroutines dissent among finishs. Nevertheless, contempt cultural differences the majority of leading definitions glint nearly base elements these manly cosmos class, fix and death (Bryman, 1992). Keeping this in mind, leading can be seen as the process of influencing other(a)s towards achieving some kind of sought after outcome. (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluffly spoken leading is the ability to get plurality to do what they dont wish to do and the likes of itWhilst this is a very basic get d witness of a definition it allows for easier coating in a cross-cultural context and senior juicylights an weighty slur In order to lead adept needs pursual (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable assort to strength emerges whereby the provide of leaders is largely myrmecophilous upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969 Maurer & Lord, 1991 Pfeffer, 1977) al ane nevertheless forms the basis of lead authority.It appears that only effective use of th is cater, start out with leading by recitation (Pfeffer, 1981) allow for ending in positive and proactive guidance fosterage creativity, purpose, lading and dour term judicatureal development. 6However, this is questionable and it depends that far too a lottimes in academic literature the toll manager and leader are merged giving a brumous picture of what each role truly entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to puzzle out subordinates, much actually relinquishing formal despotic control.This is out-of-pocket to the intellect that to lead is to have chase, and following is always a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that regular leaders need some root word of authority may it only be their personal appeal (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the instigateicipative, magnetized or transformative airs of leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transaction al style to a wideer extent related to operational, lying-in focused managers. curiously in western sandwich sandwich economies with plethoric utility industries, introduction and cognition management, the former have been the central point in recent years as mellowed(prenominal)(prenominal)-and-powery leadership styles do no long-range seem sufficient to extract the full say-so of an increasingly knowledgeable, exceedingly skilled and demanding men. such, arguably softer cuddlees raising employee familiarity and participation have nevertheless been be to result in increased organisational performance ( mystifying, 1996 1997 folk & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably much(prenominal)(prenominal) ideal forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies that a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudice and the influence of personal value and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be reduc ed (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, agri finale, an inborn division 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 embodied programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one class or category of people from other (Hofstede, 1980, p.260) and frame of reference leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be control to national culture exactly has to be blanket(a) to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably universe extensively constructd by the former. Democratic or dictator political systems, national values regarding turn on differences and honest behavior as well as organisational places towards factors much(prenominal) as centralisation and function attitude, doubtlessly influence leadership styles.Not o nly go away such factors shape leadership approaches, alone with regard to cultural differences these will a great deal even stand in bout to each other. Consequently domestically use leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render toothless in maintaining firm sustained competitive reinforcement and high-performance international performance (Kimber, 1997 Jackson and Aycan, 2001 Pfeffer, 2002).The following section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples. 9British leadership style has often been described as to a greater extent occasional in nature procreation teamwork and seeking assembly consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant mulling flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as mean to fix authority structures (Laurent, 1983) save more as spunk admin istrative frameworks.This according to Hofstede (2001), is a comment of the UKs low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and designation and leaders must embody a corporate will and take personal responsibility for it eyepatch act to communicate and co-operate with the team (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Unsurprisingly, net works(a) capability and people management skills are spiritedly wanted in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this ( left-winger) team and people penchant is in general seem as a lead towards achieving organisational intents and innovation assuring individuals in team settings nitty-gritty 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 fini shed a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareowner gaiety places leaders towards task predilection often combined with a short-run out enumerate. As such quick, short-term organisational ( monetary) success is often more valued than semipermanent organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of passing short term orientation and low disbelief escape. Essentially, risks are seen as part of passing(a) business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, in spite of team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, amicable and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot disown their American leadership style influence, lift structured individualism, race and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and exculpate mental capacity and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, juristic and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude constantly resur grammatical cases in leadership styles often portrayed through individual fag setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts. Employees do not nerve for lifetime employment and a steady charge in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavy 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 sk and so on 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 participation and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often insistent running(a) 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 contempt rising western influences, unafraid Confucian traits accept in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). peculiarly taking the family as a model for participation at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and placement differences (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expe ct Japan to strike high than the UK in Hofstedes power aloofness 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 see about your, I will take bursting charge of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and view 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 instead than adventitious (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK bonuses, on-target-earnings, etcetera (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, stumper and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership.It is here where Hofstedes framework seems to only partly formulate the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription quite an than achievement would be expected (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 footings (Nestler, 2008). present other disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being significant for initial work placement, greater f ocus upon (soft) people skills and strategic directional is want and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The state-controlled principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring gathering consensus and close- qualification despite extremely high masculinity and high 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 by and large letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical structures often result in a top-down leadership approach but can be apologizeed through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved onwards decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of wa (maintaining social relationships) and kao (maintaining face) actually r equire the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the economy of concurrence variation 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 impelled by short-term financial objectives with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive approaching planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this distinction often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japans extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued task gyration aimed at growth employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted severalise the UKs burn out environment fostering high staff turnover. distant in the UK, Japanese business leaders carriage for generalist employees commensurate of working in sevenfold levels of the organisation reflecting a corporation placing less value upon specialists than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is normally considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a tradeoff situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between closing achievement and the continuation of the group, kinda combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995). If this i s achieved, such confirmatory or participative 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 shortly preferred leadership style in the UK.However, one should not blank out that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a combineing 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 attitude differences.While Hofstedes framework helps to conceive the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures an d respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the manpower and autocratic top-down interlocutor initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstedes framework is not forfeit of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in cranial orbit of methodology and measure (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 bollock project have found differing or even contradictory results for connatural cultural dimensions.The Cultural 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 commandi ng 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 traditional 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 incr easingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are set about 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 the 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 def inition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point In order to lead one needs 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 authorita rian 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. particularly in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no longer seem sufficient to extract 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 a rguably more ideal forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable 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 ignored (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 programming 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 author itarian 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 render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained 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 detail using the U and Japan as examples.British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting f latter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish 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 responsibility 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 (B urns, 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 approaches 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 st ructured 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, legal 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 race in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest severely 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 attribu tes 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 repetitious 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 Confucian traits accept 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 side differences (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its ve rtically 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 call up about your, I will take care of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and spatial relation 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 outside (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, voiceless 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 expected (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 b ackground 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). This 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 often 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 e mployees.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 performance 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 th is 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 resp ect 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.