See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/37620974

Leadership in the Asian century: Lessons from GLOBE

Article · January 2002

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

66 9,447

1 author:

Neal M. Ashkanasy
The University of Queensland
510 PUBLICATIONS 21,784 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Neal M. Ashkanasy on 10 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

LEADERSHIP IN THE ASIAN CENTURY: LESSONS FROM

GLOBE
Neal M. Ashkanasy

ABSTRACT
In this paper, based on the results of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) 61-nation study of culture and leadership, we present findings related to
three ‘clusters’ of countries. These clusters are: (1) the ‘Anglo culture’ cluster (Australia, Canada,
Ireland, New Zealand, white South Africa, UK, and USA), the ‘Southern Asia’ cluster (Iran,
India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines), and the ‘Confucian Asia’ cluster
(China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). Data from the GLOBE study,
reporting middle managers’ perceptions of societal practices and values, and of the factors that
facilitate and inhibit effective leadership will be compared across the three clusters. Results
demonstrate that, despite differences in cultures, especially cultural values, perceptions of
effective leadership vary substantially only in respect of the extent that participation is seen to
facilitate leadership. In the Anglo cluster, participative leadership is seen as much more
facilitative of leadership, than in either of the Asian clusters. Results are discussed in terms of
effective leadership styles suitable for management in the twenty-first century, where Asian
economies are likely to play a more dominant role than they have in recent history.

INTRODUCTION
Despite faltering in the latter stages of the twentieth century (see Lingle 1998), the economies of
east and south Asia have been inexorably developing and expanding. In this respect, many of
these economies are already challenging the developed economies of the west. Bergesen and
Sonnett (2001), for example, recently illustrated this rise in an analysis of Fortune ‘Global 500’
firms. Manning (2001) notes: “Despite the ‘Asian miracle’ hype in recent years, despite the 1997
financial crash, the remarkably swift rise of Asia is for real. And it is one of the truly remarkable
phenomena of the 20th century — and a burgeoning political fact that will reshape the contours of
world power in the 21st century”.

In this case, it is imperative for those of us in the Western world to understand societal culture in
Asia and leadership models applicable in Asia. In this paper, we address this topic by dealing
specifically with culture and leadership in three clusters of countries. The first is the ‘Anglo
culture’ cluster, and comprises Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, white South Africa, UK,
and USA (see Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman 2002). The second and third clusters are both located
geographically in Asia. The ‘South Asia’ cluster comprises Iran, India, Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, and the Philippines, while the ‘Confucian Asia’ cluster comprises China, Hong Kong,
Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman 2002).

This analysis is based on the results of quantitative data obtained in Phase II of the GLOBE
(Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research program, led Professor
Robert House of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Conceivedin 1991, and
under way since 1993, the GLOBE program eventually grew to involve a network of over 170
cross-cultural scholars, and samples from 62 national cultures (in 61 countries) around the world.
The detailed reports of the GLOBE project are to be published in two books in 2002. Book 1
(House et al. [eds]. in press) presents the results of the quantitative component of the study, while
Book 2 (Chhokar, Brodbeck & House [eds]. in press), presents qualitative analysis for of 27 of
the 61 participating countries. The conceptual basis of the study has already been published in
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

House et al. (1999), while den Hartog et al. (1999) have published a preliminary analysis of the
leadership data collected in GLOBE.

The quantitative data from the GLOBE analysis were collected using questionnaires, developed
in Phase I of the GLOBE project, and to be reported in detail in House et al. (in press) including
analysis of psychometric properties. The questionnaires were designed to collect data on societal
culture, organizational culture, and leadership; and were completed by middle-level managers in
three industries: telecommunications, finance, and food processing. These industries were chosen
in order to give a wide range of industries from the relatively stable (food processing) to the
rapidly changing (telecommunications).

House et al. (1999, p. 188) note, “the attributes and entities that distinguish a given culture from
other cultures are predictive of the practices of organisations of that culture, and predictive of
leader attributes and behaviours that are most frequently enacted, acceptable, and effective in that
culture”. In this respect, culture in the GLOBE study is defined in terms of both the values and
practices within a society. Thus, the culture questionnaires were worded in terms of ‘Should
Now’ to represent the values of a society, and ‘Is Now’ (or ‘As Is’) to represent current
behaviours and practices within organisations. Examples of typical GLOBE questionnaire items
relating to future orientation are: “The way to be successful in this society is to plan ahead” (Is
Now) and “I believe that people who are successful should plan ahead” (Should Be). Respondents
responded to the survey items using a 1-7 scale, where 1 indicated strong disagreement, and 7
represented strong agreement. Nine dimensions of culture were eventually identified (see House
et al. in press), and are listed in Table 1.
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Turning now to organisational leadership, House, Hanges, and Ruiz-Quintanilla (1994, cited in
House et al. 1997, p. 548) defined this as: “… the ability of an individual to influence, motivate,
and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which
they are members”. House et al. (1999, p. 188) noted subsequently that cultures are distinguished
by “leader attributes and behaviours that are most frequently enacted, acceptable, and effective in
that culture”. They refer to this as “Culturally-determined implicit Leadership Theory” or CLT
(see also House et al. 1999). The GLOBE leadership questionnaires entailed respondents
indicating on a 7-point scale the extent to which descriptives of leadership behavior facilitate or
hinder leadership effectiveness. Based on these responses, the GLOBE project team found
twenty-one leader attributes (see den Hartog et al. 1999). A second-order factor analysis of these
attributes subsequently produced the six dimensions of leadership listed in Table 2.
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Two of the dimensions of leadership were termed ‘universal’ by den Hartog et al. (1999).
These are Charismatic (or Value-based), which was found universally to facilitate effective
leadership; and Self-Protective, which was found universally to impede effective leadership. The
remaining six dimensions were found to vary widely between countries in their impact on
leadership effectiveness.

In summary, the GLOBE study identified nine dimensions of societal culture and six
characteristics of effective leadership, as perceived by the middle management respondents across
the 62 cultures included in the study. According to House and his associates (1999), societal
culture determines each society’s CLT that in turn underlies the perceptions of leadership held by
the respondents. In this paper, we compare the cultures and leadership effectiveness attributes of
three ‘clusters’ of countries as defined by Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman (2002), which include data
from 19 of the 61 countries in the GLOBE study.

The Three Clusters

Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman (2002) found that the GLOBE data could be used to identify ten
‘country clusters’. These were Anglo cultures, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe,
Eastern Europe, Latin America, Indigenous Africa, Arabic cultures, Southern Asia, and
Confucian Asia. In this paper, we are concerned with three of these clusters: Anglo, Southern
Asia, and Confucian (or East) Asia. These clusters actually reflect Huxley’s (1997) categorisation
of ancient legal systems into three groups, originating from India, China, and the Hellenistic
(Western) world. In particular, Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman note that Asian culture is most
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

appropriately subdivided into clusters based, respectively, on the Indian and Chinese spheres of
influence.

The following is a summary of each cluster culture, based on Gupta and Hanges, and
Dorfman (2002) and papers on each cluster to be published in 2002 in a Special Issue of the
Journal of World Business (Vol 37, Issue 1; see Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, Earnshaw et al.,
2002; Li, Fu, Peng et al. 2001; Gupta, Surie, Javidan, Chhokar et al. 2002).

Anglo Cluster
This cluster comprises the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, together with the
‘New World’ components of the once-dominant British Empire: United States, Canada, South
Africa (white sample), Australia, and New Zealand. Ashkanasy et al. (2002) note that the
countries in this cluster are all principally English speaking, and are all developed ‘First World’
nations.1 Cultural origins from this group can be found in the Anglo-Celtic history of England, a
(mostly Protestant) Christian religious background, and the colonisation policies pursued by the
British for much of the latter half of the Second Millennium. Today, these countries, and
especially the United States, dominate the world’s economy, accounting for 40 percent of the
world’s GNP, despite comprising only 7 percent of world population (see Ashkanasy et al. 2002).
Ashkanasy et al. (2002) argue, based on the evolution of democratic government in England, and
the rugged individuality of the colonists, that this cluster is characterised by values of
individualism and egalitarianism.

Southern Asian Cluster

In contrast to the Anglo cluster, the Southern Asia cluster comprises some of the least developed
countries in the world. Inhabited by 25 percent of the world’s population, this sector accounts for
only 3 percent of the world’s economic output (see Gupta, Surie et al. 2002). Dominated by
Islamic and Hindu belief systems, the countries of this cluster are little understood in the West.
Gupta, Surie, et al. note that “no layer really dominates the others, so that the system appears
irrational to the outsiders and one in which the modalities of development are highly challenging
for the insiders”. Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman (2002) note further that the countries in this cluster
are characterised by a “community-centered spirit”. Thus, while the region may been seen to be
in turmoil to outsiders, its long-term history reflects peaceful co-existence of diverse cultures,
founded on a historically shared Vedic (ancient Indian) culture. Thus, Islamic mosques in this
region can often be found adjacent to Hindu temples, Buddhist pagodas, Christian churches, or
Sikh Gurudwaras. Nonetheless, as Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman (2002) point out, society in
Southern Asia remains strongly rooted in the social division of labor (e.g., the caste system in
India) and hierarchical order.

Confucian Asia Cluster

Just as Southern Asia is historically dominated by Indian cultural values, the Confucian Asia
cluster has historically been influenced by Chinese culture. Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman (2002)
note that even Japan, despite its geographical separation from China, “has had rich cultural
interactions with China”. In this respect, the Confucian cultures are characterised by an emphasis
on networks and trust (see Lowe 1998; Pyatt, Ashkanasy, Tamaschke & Grigg 2001). Li et al.
(2001) note further that the Confucian Asia cultures differ from other cultures in their
‘malleability’. Thus, these cultures have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to a changing world.
As a consequence, the cluster accounts for 25 percent of world population and 26 percent of
world GNP. With the high rate of growth currently in progress, especially in Mainland China,
however, this is likely to improve rapidly over the next century (see Li et al. 2001).

RESULTS FROM GLOBE

Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Results from the GLOBE study are presented here in the form of polar graphs, where the
differences between the three clusters can be compared at a glance. Three graphs are presented,
corresponding to As Now culture (Figure 1), Should Be culture (Figure 2), and the six second-
order leadership attributes identified in GLOBE (Figure 3). In the following discussion, we will
deal with each set of results in turn.
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Societal practices (Is Now Scores)

Figure 1 shows that differences in Is Now culture between the clusters are principally reflected in
three dimensions: In group collectivism, power distance, and humane orientation. Lesser
differences are reflected in societal emphasis on collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance.

The outstanding differentiation concerns in-group collectivism, where Gupta, Hanges, and
Dorfman (2002) categorise South Asia, Confucian Asia, and Anglo cultures as, respectively,
high, medium, and low on this dimension. This contrasts with societal emphasis on collectivism,
where Confucian Asia is categorised as high, while Southern Asia and Anglo cultures are
medium on this dimension. Taken together, these differences reflect a core differentiation in
terms of cultural practices. Anglo cultures are individualistic; Southern Asia cultures reflect
loyalty to the in-group (read social caste), while Confucian Asia is characterised by a societal
collectivism, based on networks and trust (as observed by Li et al. 2001).

The differences in power distance and humane orientation result from Southern Asia’s high
classification in both these categories compared to the other two clusters, which are in the
medium category. While the power distance difference reflects the emphasis on social class in
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Southern Asia, the results in respect of human orientation seem counter-intuitive. Gupta, Surie et
al. (2002) note, however, that this is reflected as ‘group-oriented humane approach’. Thus
‘humane’ refers in the context of these cultures to a humane approach within the ingroup, not
necessarily towards out groups who are expected to mind their own business. Combined with the
results in respect of power distance, the picture that emerges is of a culture where members of
societal groups are expected to be fiercely loyal within their groups, but to respect the right of
other societal groups to maintain their independence (see also Gupta, Surie et al. 2002).

In summary of Is Now culture in these clusters, they are most strongly differentiated in terms of
societal divisions and hierarchy, and loyalty within those divisions. The Anglo cultures are more
individualistic, while Southern Asia cultures are more structured, and Confucian Asian cultures
tend to have a greater sense of societal collectivism based on networks and trust (see also Pyatt et
al. 2001).

Societal values (Should Be Scores)

The results in respect of societal values are shown in Figure 2. This reveals a much stronger
differentiation between the three cultures than was reflected in the As Is scores, with intercluster
differences evident on every dimension. The strongest effects, however, are on ingroup
collectivism and power distance. In respect of in-group collectivism, the results show that this
culture dimension is valued in the Anglo cultures, despite the individuality reflected in these
cultures. In Confucian Asian society, on the other hand, power distance is valued while in-group
collectivism is seen to be not so important. Li et al. (2001) comment, “this quality (high value on
power distance) is consistent with the Confucian teachings stressing the value of hierarchical
structures in society”. It seems, however, that such strong values may not be so evident in
practice, perhaps reflecting the conclusion reached by Li et al. that the Confucian Asia cultures
are malleable to external influences and customs.

In summary of the cultural values dimensions, the data indicate that the Anglo cultures value in-
group collectivism and gender egalitarianism, and a humane orientation, and place relatively low
value on uncertainty avoidance, societal collectivism, and power distance. Southern Asia cultures
are shown to place a high value on all dimensions, with the exception of performance orientation,
gender egalitarianism, and power distance. Finally, Confucian Asian culture values uncertainty
avoidance, assertiveness, and power distance, and places relatively less value on performance
orientation, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, and a human orientation.

Leadership effectiveness attributes

According to the theory underpinning the GLOBE study (e.g., see House et al. 1999), leadership
effectiveness perceptions derive from Culturally-implicit Leadership Theories (CLTs) that are, in
turn, based on the cultural values and practices extant in each society. Figure 3 reveals, however,
a remarkably consistent picture of leadership effectiveness attribute perceptions across the three
cultures. As den Hartog et al. (1999) note, the leadership attributes of Charisma and Self-
Protective are universally endorsed across the 62 national nations in the GLOBE study: Charisma
is positively endorsed, and Self-Protective is negatively endorsed. This finding is reflected in the
three clusters that are the subject of this analysis. The remaining four dimensions of leadership
were found in the GLOBE study to vary between cultures. For the three clusters analysed here,
however, there was remarkable agreement also in respect of Team-orientated, Humane, and
Autonomous leadership; with Team-orientated and Humane positively endorsed in all three
clusters, and Autonomous negatively endorsed. Only one of the leadership dimensions was found
to be substantially different across the clusters. This was Participative leadership. While this
dimension was not negatively endorsed in any of the cultures in the way that, for instance, Self-
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Protective leadership was, the Anglo cultures cluster endorsed Participative more positively than
either of the other two clusters.

The finding that the three cultures are differentiated in their regard of participation as a
characteristic of effective leadership reflects the differences in the cultures of the clusters, and can
be interpreted in terms of CLTs. Participative leadership in GLOBE is defined in terms of
subordinates actively participating with the leader in the tasks that the group is undertaking (see
Table 2). The Southern Asia cluster is characterised in practice by high power distance and in-
group loyalty and humanity. In this circumstance, leaders are representatives of the higher classes
of society who are charged with looking after the interests of their (lower caste) subordinates.
Confucian Asia values power distance and practices relatively high levels of societal collectivism.
In this culture, a leader is trusted to get on with the job on behalf of (usually) his subordinates. By
contrast, in Anglo cultures, where individualism is strongly valued, subordinates are more valued
for their contributions at every level in society, and therefore are expected to take a more active
role in leadership. This view also reflects the democratic tradition built into the cultures of the
Anglo cluster countries (see Ashkanasy et al. 2002).

IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

In this analysis of three country clusters identified by Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman (2002), we
have considered societal cultural practices and values, together with perceptions of effective
leadership attributes, based on data collected in the 61-country GLOBE study. The three clusters
included in the analysis were the Anglo cultures, characterised by Ashkanasy et al. (2002) as the
“legacy of the British Empire”; Southern Asia, described by Gupta, Surie et al. (2002) as ‘a blend
of old and new culture’; and Confucian Asia, that Li et al. (2001) view as ‘malleable’ — a
preparedness to adapt to the modern world. Results confirmed that the three country clusters vary
in terms of their cultural values and practices. In particular, Southern Asian cultures are the most
status conscious, Confucian Asia places emphasis on networks of relationships built on trust, and
the Anglo cultures place a premium on individualism. In terms of effective leadership attributes,
however, the three clusters vary substantially only in terms of the extent to which participation is
seen as a desirable characteristic. While none of the clusters sees participation as an inhibitor of
leadership, both of the Asian cultures endorse it less positively than the Anglo cultures, although
for apparently different reasons.

These findings have two implications in terms of the title of this paper ‘Leadership in the Asian
Century’. Given the rise of the Asian economies over the past century, and the anticipation that
they will play an even more important role in the new century, this is clearly a critical issue. The
first implication is that, despite a pattern of strong cultural differences, the Anglo and Asian
cultural clusters endorse leadership that is charismatic (or values-based), humane, and team
orientated, and eschew leadership that is self-protective or autonomous (based on leader-
orientated individualism). Clearly, the three clusters see leadership as a phenomenon that is based
on team performance, rather than any notion of personal aggrandisement.

The second implication is that managers in the three cultures need to recognise that there are real
differences in the extent to which leaders involve team members anticipatively in decision-
making. Although there is agreement in terms of the other five leadership attributes, participation
may well prove to be a critical sticking point for cross-cultural leadership in the Asian Century.
As long as this issue remains unresolved, managers in the different clusters are going to have to
be prepared to adjust their leadership styles in terms of participation if they are going to be
recognised as leaders in the other clusters. Given the differences in cultural values across the
clusters, however, this is not going to be easy. In particular, this result underscores the need for
managers to take a contingency perspective on leadership, perhaps along the lines of the Vroom-
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Yetton-Jago Normative Model of leadership (see Vroom & Jago 1988). In this model, one of the
determinants of whether to adopt an autocratic, consultative, or participative leadership style rests
on the acceptance of the outcome by the decision stakeholders (or cluster members in the context
of the present paper).

The analysis described in this paper is subject to four limitations. In the first instance, we have
treated the three clusters as if they were internally homogeneous. While Gupta, Hanges and
Dorfman (2002) have shown that the clusters are statistically discernable, this does not rule out
scope for variation within the clusters. Indeed, it is hard to conceive that countries as diverse as
Iran, India, and the Philippines can be considered as one. Similarly, there are clearly great
differences between whites in South Africans and Catholics in Ireland. Taken in context with the
world-level view (e.g. as presented in den Hartog et al. 1999), the withincluster analyses to be
published in the Journal of World Business (Ashkanasy et al. 2002; Gupta, Surie et al. 2002; Li et
al. 2001), and the within-country analyses to be included in the GLOBE Anthology (Chokkar et
al. in press), the GLOBE study may be leading us to a unique multi-level perspective of culture
and organizational leadership.

A second limitation concerns the timeframe of the GLOBE data collection. Essentially, the
GLOBE results present a snapshot of culture and leadership in the world — as it was in the latter
half of the 1990s. Certainly, the calamity of September 11, 2001 and its aftermath will have a
lasting effect that could ultimately result in some of our conclusions becoming dated in the future.
Still, such snapshots help us to make sense of our world. Future researchers will continue to take
similar snapshots, perhaps using the GLOBE instruments, which will enable us to understand
better the dynamics of change in cultures and leadership models.

Thirdly, the GLOBE results were based on a narrow slice of the population in each country —
middle managers in the food processing, telecommunications, and finance industries. House and
his colleagues (in press) justify this selection within the context of leadership research, but
validation of the results in other industries, and other populations, will be needed before the
results can be generalised beyond the participant groups with confidence.

A final limitation is that the analysis presented here is based on an analysis of societal culture. In
fact, the GLOBE results conclude separate measures of organisational culture. There have not
been presented in this paper owing to space limitations.

CONCLUSION
This paper is one of a number of papers based on the GLOBE study that have been published or
presented over the past five years, leading up to publication of the main books in 2002 (House et
al. in press; Chokkar et al. in press). For example, papers published and forthcoming by
Ashkanasy and his colleagues relating to leadership in Australia and New Zealand include
Ashkanasy and Trevor-Roberts (2001) and Ashkanasy, Kennedy, and Trevor- Roberts, in press.
For a more complete listing, refer to the GLOBE website [Link] ca/
web/[Link]/index/.

In this paper, we have endeavoured to give a hint of the flavor of the GLOBE findings and their
interpretation. The GLOBE study, by virtue of its comprehensiveness and methodological rigour,
is sure to shape our knowledge of global leadership for at least the next decade, and perhaps even
beyond. The essential message of this paper is that, despite great dissimilarity in cultural practices
and beliefs, there is considerable synergy in the way that effective leadership is perceived across
the three culture clusters that we have addressed. The principal difference in leadership in Anglo
and Asian cultures concerns the issue of participation. Nonetheless, leadership researchers (e.g.
Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

Vroom & Jago 1988) have already provided us with models that enable the appropriate level of
participation to be evaluated. In this case, guided by the GLOBE results, leadership in the Asian
Century may be more straightforward than many anticipate.

REFERENCES
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Trevor-Roberts, E. 2001, ‘Leading in Australia: Results from the GLOBE
study’, Mt. Eliza Business Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 33-39.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Trevor-Roberts, E. & Earnshaw, L. 2002, ‘The Anglo Cluster: Legacy of the
British Empire’, Journal of World Business, vol. 37, no. 1., pp. 28-39.

Ashkanasy, N.M., Trevor-Roberts, E. & Kennedy, J. In press, ‘The egalitarian leader: Leadership
in Australia and New Zealand’, in Leadership in Asia Pacific: Managing relationships for
teamwork and change, D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (eds.), World Scientific Publishing,
Singapore.

Bergesen, A. J. & Sonnett, J. 2001, ‘The Global 500: Mapping the world economy at century’s
end’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol 44, pp. 1602-1615.

Chhokar, J., Brodbeck, F. & House, R.J. (eds.), In press, The GLOBE Research Project: Country
Anthology, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.

den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Dorfman, P.W., Ruiz-Quintana, A. & GLOBE
Associates, 1999, ‘Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership
theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’,
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 219-256.

Gupta, V., Hanges, P.J. & Dorfman, P. W. 2002, ‘Cultural Clustering: Methodologies and
findings’, Journal of World Business, vol. 37, no. 1., pp. 11-15.

Gupta, V., Surie G., Javidan, M. & Chhokar, J. 2002, ‘Southern Asia Cluster: Where The Old
Meets The New?’, Journal of World Business, vol. 37, no. 1., pp. 16-27.

House, R. M., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V. & GLOBE Associates, In
press, Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations:
GLOBE — a 62 Nation Study, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. & Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. 1994, ‘Proceedings of the Conference on Global
Leadership and Organizational Behaviour (GLOBE)’, Calagary, Alberta, Canada.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.
W., Gupta, V. & GLOBE Associates 1999, ‘Cultural influences on leadership and
organizations: Project GLOBE’, in Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 1, W. H. Mobley, M.
J. Gessner & V. Arnold (eds.), JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 171-233.

House, R.J., Wright, N.S. & Aditya, R.N. 1997, ‘Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational
Leadership: A Critical Analysis and A Proposed Theory’, in New Perspectives on
International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, C. Earley, M. Erez (eds.), Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Huxley, A. 1997, ‘Golden Yoke, silken text’, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 106, pp. 1885-
 Later published in International Journal of Organisational Behaviour (2002) 5(3), 150-163.

1951.

Li, J., Fu, P. P. & Peng, T. K. 2001, ‘Confucian Asia cluster: The malleability of Confucianism
— Evidence and Implications from Confucian Asia’, Unpublished manuscript.

Lingle, C. 1998. The rise and decline of the Asian century: False starts on the path to the global
millennium, 3rd ed., Asia 2000, Hong Kong.

Lowe, S. 1998, ‘Culture and network institutions in Hong Kong: A hierarchy of perspectives. A
response to Wilkinson. “Culture institutions and business in East Asia”,’ Organization
Studies, vol. 19, pp. 321-343.

Manning, R. 2001, ‘The Asian Century’, Taiwan Security Research,

[Link] (Accessed 18/10/01).

Pyatt, R., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tamaschke, R. & Grigg, T. 2001, ‘Transitions and traditions in
Chinese family businesses: Evidence from Hong Kong and Thailand’, in Advances in Human
Resource Management in Asia, J. Kidd, X. Li & F. Richter (eds.), Macmillan, New York, pp.
80-104.

Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. 1988, The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

View publication stats