Expatriate Leadership: Cultural Influence on Managerial Actions

This report, authored by Muenjohn and Armstrong, investigates the impact of cultural values on the leadership behaviors of expatriate managers, specifically focusing on Australian managers working in Thailand. The study examines the relationship between the cultural values of Thai subordinates, assessed using Hofstede's cultural framework, and the leadership styles of expatriate managers, measured through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) based on Bass and Avolio's transformational leadership model. The research aims to determine whether expatriate managers should adapt their leadership styles to the cultural backgrounds of their subordinates. The findings indicate a limited role for Thai subordinates' culture in predicting the leadership behaviors of expatriate managers, supporting a near universalistic perspective for the transformational-transactional paradigm. The study contributes to the understanding of cross-cultural leadership and provides insights for managing expatriates in Thailand. The report includes a literature review covering Hofstede's cultural framework, transformational leadership, and the debate between culture-specific and culture-universal leadership approaches. The study uses quantitative methods to analyze the relationships between cultural values and leadership behaviors, differentiating itself from previous qualitative studies. The conclusion emphasizes that transformational leadership is effective across cultures, though specific behaviors might vary.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
265
Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on the Leadership Behaviours
of Expatriate Managers
Nuttawuth Muenjohn
School of Management, RMIT University
239 Bourke St. Level 16 (Office 108.16.42)
Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia
[e-mail]
Anona Armstrong
Centre for International Corporate Governance Research (CICGR)
Victoria University, Australia
ABSTRACT
One of the basic reasons that the authors investigated cross-cultural leadership
was to determine the extent to which leadership behaviours can be influenced by
cultural values. Some researchers suggest that certain leadership behaviours are
likely to be particular to a given culture, whereas others argue that there should
be certain structures that leaders must perform to be effective, regardless of
cultures. This study was conducted to determine the possible relationships
between the work-related values of subordinates and the leadership behaviours
exhibited by expatriate managers. Ninety-one Thai subordinates, direct-report of
expatriates, responded on the instruments called the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Value Survey Module (VSM). Major results
indicate that the culture of Thai subordinates has a very limited role in predicting
the leadership behaviours of expatriate managers. Furthermore, the study seems
to provide evidence to support a near universalistic position for the
transformational-transactional paradigm.
Keywords: Leadership, cultural values, transformational leadership, expatriate
management
_____________
Acknowledgment: The authors would like to thank the Centre for International
Corporate Governance Research (CICGR), Faculty of Business & Law, Victoria
University, Australia, and the Faculty of Business, Asian University, Thailand, for their
support of this work.

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
266
1. INTRODUCTION
Multinational corporations (MNCs) seeking a competitive advantage in the
management of their companies are increasingly relying on the appointment of
expatriate managers to carry out headquarters‟ policies in the host markets.
However, many expatriate appointments are unsuccessful. One of the reasons
may be cultural differences. Because of cultural differences, the question is
whether expatriates should adjust their style of leadership to conform to the
cultural background of subordinates. Given this case, some researchers believe
that leadership behaviours should be particular to a certain cultural environment
(Hofstede,1995), whereas others argue that the underlying constructs of effective
leadership tend to be similar across cultures [Levitt, 1995].
That Australian companies consider Thailand one of their important
investment bases is indicated by the continued, steady growth in trade between
the two countries. There are still few studies, however, of Australian expatriates
working in Thailand. To date, the most relevant studies are those by Thompson
[1981] and Edwards, Edwards, and Muthaly [1995]. Although both studies
selected Australian expatriates as the target population, the studies were limited
to providing guidelines for effective leadership behaviour for Australian
expatriates.
Australia and Thailand were identified as having different cultural values
when described by Hofstede‟s [1984] four cultural dimensions. Although
Australia is located in the Asia-Pacific region, it has a British historical
background and is heavily influenced by Western cultures [Harris and Moran,
1996]. Thailand, on the other hand, shares a common background with Eastern
cultures. These differences suggest that the two cultures would tend to diverge
from a common model of leadership. Understanding the influence of culture on
leadership behaviours would be a valuable contribution to the theory of cross-
cultural leadership and to the management practices of expatriate managers in
Thailand.
The purpose of this study is to determine the linkages between the cultural
values of host-nation subordinates and the leadership behaviours exhibited by
expatriate managers. More specifically, it seeks to answer a research question
about the extent to which the variance in three leadership behaviors exhibited by
Australian managers can be explained by four cultural values of Thai
subordinates. Two prominent theories were used in the current study. The
Hofstede [1984] four cultural model was adopted to determine the cultural values
of Thai subordinates, while transformational leadership [Bass and Avolio, 1997]
was used to capture the leadership behaviours of Australian expatriate managers.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
267
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review is organized into four parts: Hofstede‟s cultural
framework (2.1), Bass and Avoilio‟s transformational leadership (2.2), culture-
specific versus culture-universal (2.3), and transformational leadership in the
cross-cultural setting (2.4).
2.1. Defining Culture: Hofstede’s Cultural Framework
Culture can be defined by several terms. In fact, Kroeber and Kluckhohn
[1952] gathered more than 160 distinct definitions of the word “culture” and
catalogued it into seven separate groups. Perhaps the best-known work is that of
Hofstede [1984], whose survey of 88,000 respondents in 66 countries generated a
33-item questionnaire that measured four cultural dimensions.
Power distance described the extent to which inequalities were accepted
among the people of a society. In countries with high power distance, people
accepted and expected differences in power among them, whereas in countries
with low power distance, the majority expected that the differences in power
should be minimized.
Uncertainty avoidance indicated the extent to which people in a society feel
threatened by unpredictable or unknown situations and thus “[try] to avoid these
situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules…
and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of expertise” [Hofstede, 1995,
p. 195].
Masculinity, with its opposite pole, Femininity, reflected the distribution of
roles between sexes that different societies exhibited in different ways.
Hofstede‟s [1984] analysis revealed that the dominant values of people in a
masculine society were assertive and competitive, whereas members of a
feminine culture valued more nurturing, caring, and modesty.
Individualism, with its opposite, Collectivism, described the degree to which
individuals in a society were integrated into groups. In an individualistic society,
the ties between individuals were loose. People were supposed to take care of
themselves and their immediate families. In a collectivistic country, people were
described as living within a tight social framework.
Hofstede‟s cultural framework, according to Mead [1998, p. 43], provided
“the best there is” of a conceptual benchmark for understanding culture in many
societies or countries. The model not only showed the significant relationships
between its dimensions and several areas of general management [see, for
example, Katz and Seifer, 1996, for motivation systems; and Boyacigiller,
Kleinberg, Phillips, and Sackmann, 1996, for decision making], but also its
relationships with leadership behaviors [e.g., Blunt and Jones, 1997; Elenkov,
1997].

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
268
2.2. Leadership: Bass and Avolio’s Transformational Leadership
Although the constructs of the transformational leadership model are not new
and could be found in the works of earlier management theorists [Humphreys and
Einstein, 2003], transformational leadership was recognized as a new and current
approach to leadership [Northouse, 1997]. Based on the work of Burns [1978],
Bass [1985] identified three major leadership behaviours: laissez-faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership.
Laissez-faire represented an absence of leadership. A laissez-faire leader
showed no concern and responsibility for the results of his or her projects.
Followers working under this leader were usually left to their own
responsibilities and might need to seek assistance and supervision from
alternative sources [Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, and Spangler, 1995].
A transactional leader identified and clarified his or her expectation to
followers and promised rewards in exchange for the desired goals. To achieve the
goals, the transactional leader needed to clearly determine and define the role and
task required of the followers. A transactional leader also exhibited his or her
behaviour when involved in corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative
reinforcement.
Transformational leadership was a process in which the leaders took
actions to try to increase their followers‟ awareness of what was right and
important. This process was associated with motivating followers to perform
“beyond expectation” and encouraging followers to look beyond their own self-
interest for the good of the group or organisation. By working harder for a
transformational leader, his or her followers could develop their skills by using
their own decisions and taking greater responsibility [Den Hartog, Van Muijen,
and Koopman, 1997].
Several authors have confirmed that transformational leadership behaviour
was, on average, highly positively correlated with subordinates‟ satisfaction,
extra effort, and effectiveness, whereas transactional leadership was generally
viewed as being positively linked to performance outcomes. For laissez-faire, it
had been found consistently to be negatively correlated with all of the measures
of performance outcomes among followers [see, for example, Kirkbride, 2006;
Ingram, 1997; Medley and Larochelle, 1995; Bass and Avolio, 1997].
2.3. Culture and Leadership: Culture-Specific versus Culture-Universal
One of the main debates among cross-cultural management scholars was
that of how well the application of management practices could be transferred
across cultures. On the one hand, it was believed that the significant changes of
technology, communication, transportation, and free-market capitalism had
resulted in cultures‟ becoming more alike [Levitt, 1995]. On the other hand, it
was argued that culture was steeped in a deep value system that was unlikely to
change; thus, management practices needed to be tailor-made to fit diverse
cultural backgrounds [Hofstede, 1995].

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
269
These conflicting viewpoints were also applied to the study of leadership
when culture was used to explain leadership behaviour. Two terms used by
Triandis [1994] to distinguish the different types of cross-cultural studies were
“emic” and “etic.” Emics referred to ideas, behaviours, and concepts that were
culturally unique or specific, whereas etics referred to ideas, behaviours, and
concepts that were culturally universal.
In terms of leadership, the emic approach assumed that different leadership
prototypes or characteristics would be expected to occur in societies that had
different cultural profiles. In contrast, the etic approach suggested that, although
differences between cultures might exist, there were certain underlying structures
or behaviours that leaders had to perform to be effective leaders, regardless of
cultures.
2.4. Transformational Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Setting
A limited number of studies have examined the relationships between
culture and transformational leadership. Many of those, however, were
conceptual investigations. For example, Jung, Bass, and Sosik [1995], based on
their review, proposed that several characteristics of collectivistic cultures should
enhance an easier emergence of transformational leadership than would be the
case in individualistic cultures. Dorfman [1996] also believed that the basic
behaviours recognised in transformational leadership, such as inspiration,
motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual challenge, were seen as a
“core function” of outstanding leaders that should be similar around the world.
Based on their empirical data in the U.S. and Taiwan, Spreitzer, Perttula,
and Xin [2005] found that cultural values play a significant role in the
relationships between transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness.
Madzar [2005] also found that transformation leadership seems to be a
meaningful determinant of subordinates‟ information-seeking across five
countries.
Bass [1997] believed that transformational leadership should travel well
across cultures. The universality of transformational leadership, according to
Bass [1977] was based on the fact that leaders who practiced transformational
leadership were more effective than those who displayed transactional or non-
leadership behaviours, regardless of cultures, countries, and organisations. Bass
[1997] also acknowledged that „universal,‟ in his meaning, was a universally
applicable conceptualization. That is, although the concept of transformational
leadership appeared to be universally valid, the specific behaviours associated
with each leadership factor might vary to some extent, particularly from one
country to another.

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
270
3. PRESENT INVESTIGATION AND ITS HYPOTHESES
As previously mentioned, the studies of Thompson [1981] and Edwards et
al. [1995] only investigated the general experience of Australian expatriates in
Thailand, and both studies conducted their research by relying mainly on
qualitative approaches that might lead researchers to use their personal judgments
when it came to interpreting the results [Sekaran, 2000]. The present study,
therefore, will differ from the previous studies by: (a) investigating the leadership
behaviours of Australian expatriate managers; (b) linking those leadership
behaviours to the cultural background of Thai subordinates; (c) drawing on two
well-recognized theoretical models, transformational leadership [Bass and
Avolio, 1997] and four cultural dimensions [Hofstede, 1984]; and (d) using a
quantitative approach.
Reviews of cross-cultural leadership [e.g., Dorfman, 1996; Bass, 1990; Den
Hartog et al., 1999] had raised the basic question: Were there universally
endorsed prototypes of ideal leaders, regardless of culture? In fact, their studies
of cross-cultural leadership showed the conflict of viewpoints between “culture-
specific” and “culture-universal” approaches. Regarding the two approaches,
Chemers [1997] argued that, if an investigation concerned leadership at the
general or basic function, then the universal perspective was likely to be
confirmed. However, if leadership was examined at the level of specific
behaviour, then culture seemed to play a strong role.
Chemers‟ [1997] proposition seemed to be consistent with previous
literature investigating the influence of culture on leadership, which found that
culture was likely to have a very limited role in the transformational-transactional
paradigm at the principle level [see Drofman, 1996; Den Hartong et al., 1999;
Bass, 1997], whereas specific behaviours might vary across cultures [Jung et al.,
1995]. Furthermore, transformational leadership, according to Bass [1997] and
Den Hartog et al. [1999], tended to show that leadership behaviours were
“culture-free” when considering different types of universals. Accordingly, the
following three hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1: that the four cultural dimensions of Thai subordinates will
not significantly explain the variance in the transformational leadership
behaviour exhibited by Australian managers.
Hypothesis 2: that the four cultural dimensions of Thai subordinates will
not significantly explain the variance in the transactional leadership behaviour
exhibited by Australian managers.
Hypothesis 3: that the four cultural dimensions of Thai subordinates will
not significantly explain the variance in the laissez-faire leadership behaviour
exhibited by Australian managers.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
271
4. METHODOLOGY
This discussion of methodology covers sample (4.1), instruments (4.2), and
methods (4.3).
4.1. Sample
Thai subordinates who worked under Australian expatriates in Thailand
were identified as the target population. According to the Directory of Members
of the Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok, 95 Australian
expatriates working in Thailand met the criterion for participation in this study.
It was revealed that, at the time, there were 221 Thai subordinates who “directly
reported” to 95 Australian managers. As a result, these 221 were treated as the
population of Thai subordinates in this study. This suggested that the ratio of 2
Thai subordinates per 1 Australian manager (221 divided by 95 = 2.3) should be
used in the study. Consequently, the ratio produced the sample size of 190 direct-
reporting Thai subordinates. This sample size represented 86% of the total
population.
Initially, this study attempted to calculate a suitable sample size by
considering other formulas or methods; for example, the formula for calculating
the sample size based on a known population size developed by Krejcie and
Morgan [1970]. Within this formula, a 95% level of confidence and a 5% degree
of error were adopted. The formula was:
n = χ² NP (1-P) / [d² (N-1) + χ² P (1-P)]
n = 3.841 x 221 x 0.2 (1-0.2) / [0.05²(221-1) + 3.841 x 0.2 (1-0.2)]
n = 115.86, or the sample size would consist of 115 Thai subordinates.
Considering the sample size above, the ratio of Thai subordinates per 1
Australian manager would be 1:1 (115 divided by 95 = 1.2), which was not
recommended for the lower-level raters because of the protection of the
anonymity of the raters [Bass and Avolio, 1997]. As a result, two Thai
subordinates were selected by each Australian superior to complete the
questionnaires.
4.2. Instruments
Leadership behaviours displayed by Australian expatriates were measured
by the “Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire” (MLQ 5x-short) developed by
Bass and Avolio [1997]. The MLQ 5x-short contained 45 items, tapping nine
conceptually distinct leadership factors. Five scales were identified as
characteristics of transformational leadership (idealized influence attributed and
behaviour, inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual
stimulation). Three scales were defined as characteristic of transactional
leadership (contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and
management-by-exception-passive). One scale was described as non-leadership
(laissez-faire). Participants were asked on the questionnaire to judge how
frequently expatriate managers displayed their behaviours, using this five-item

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
272
scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 =
frequently, if not always.
The Values Survey Module (VSM) was used to identify the four cultural
dimensions of the Thai subordinates [Hofstede, 1984]. The VSM was a product
of an international attitude survey program held between 1967 and 1973, using
about 117,000 survey questionnaires from 66 countries. It produced the scores of
the four cultural dimensions; namely, power distance (PDI), uncertainty
avoidance (UAI), individualism (IDV), and masculinity (MAS). The VSM used
in this study consisted of 14 items selected from the original VSM, but shorter, to
overcome the low response rate to mailed questionnaires [Sekaran, 2000]. The
three questions measuring PDI and the three questions representing UAI were
kept in the short version. The difference was that the 14 work goal items were
reduced to 8 in this version. Four work goal items represented the MAS
dimension, and another four items measured the IDV dimension. In order to
minimize cultural and language problems, the questionnaires were first translated
formally from English to Thai by a Thai native translator from the Royal Thai
Consulate General in Melbourne, and then, when completed, independently re-
translated back to English by the researcher.
4.3. Method
To answer the research question, a series of multiple-regression analyses
was employed. Multiple-regression analysis provides statistical results showing
how much of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained when
several independent variables are examined [Punch, 1998]. In the multiple-
regression equation, various values for the dependent variable are predicted by
the corresponding values for the independent variables when the intercept and
regression coefficients are constants. In addition, the analysis also statistically
computes the estimate effect of each independent variable on the dependent
variable while simultaneously controlling for the effects of other independent
variables [Singleton, Straits, and Straits, 1993].
In this study, the power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and
individualism cultural dimensions were presented as the group of independent
variables while transformational, transactional, and non-leadership behaviour
was treated separately as dependent variables.
The analysis used a two-step approach proposed by Haire, Rolph, Ronald,
and William [1998], particularly recommended when the data analyst has little
previous knowledge about relationships among the set of variables. In the first
step, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was initially used to test the
overall effect of the set of independent variables (i.e., power distance,
individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance) on the set of dependent
variables (transformational, transactional, and non-leadership). Then, a set of
multiple-regression analysis was conducted separately to test hypothesis 1, 2, and
3 concerning the possible effect of the four cultural dimensions on the three
individual leadership behaviours.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
273
5. RESULTS
A reliability check for both the English MLQ and Thai MLQ was conducted
to provide evidence that the leadership instruments, especially after being
translated from English to Thai, produced the data for which they were designed.
As Cronbach‟s coefficient alpha was provided as a standard measure of
reliability, 45 items were included in the calculations to identify reliability
coefficients for the English and Thai MLQs. The values of Cronbach alpha
produced were alpha = 0.86 for the original MLQ and alpha = 0.87 for the
translated MLQ. The reliability values gained from both MLQs were greater than
0.70, indicating an acceptable statistical testing level [Nunnally, 1967]. It also
indicated that the scales were highly reliable and that the reliability of the Thai
translated version was similar to that of the English version. The VSM
instrument, when checked for reliability, produced the value of reliability
coefficient (alpha) = 0.60. This reliability value was slightly below Nunnally‟s
[1978] standard of 0.70. It is noted that a low reliability value was one of the
major concern about the VSM instrument [see, for example, Helgstrand and
Stuhlmacher, 1999; and Kuchinke, 1999].
5.1. Participants
Ninety-one useable questionnaires were returned, representing a response
rate of approximately 48%. A similar number of male and female Thai
subordinates participated in this study. There were 44 (48.4%) male participants
and 47 (51.6%) female, aged relatively young (82.4% below age 39), and the
majority had university experience (83.5% with at least bachelor‟s degree or
better). The average age of Thai participants was between 30 and 39 years, and a
bachelor‟s degree was the mode level of their education. The results also
indicated that 49 (53.8%) Thai subordinates held positions at the middle-
management level. Most participants (88.0%) had been working for their present
organisations for longer than one year. The mode employment period with their
present companies was more than 3 years.
5.2. Effects of Cultural Dimensions and Leadership Behaviours
The results in Table 1 indicate that the main effects of PDI, UAI, MAS, and
IDV were found to be not statistically significant, and that changes in the four
cultural dimensions did not significantly affect the three leadership behaviours.
Table 1
MANOVA Results
Main Effect Pillai’s Trace Wilks’
Lamba
F value Hypothesis
df
Error df Sig.
PDI 1.405 .009 1.190 12 2.937 .50
UAI 1.781 .008 1.026 15 3.132 .56
MAS 1.659 .004 1.792 12 2.937 .35
IDV 2.387 .001 1.485 21 3.422 .40
PDI = power distance. UAI = uncertainty avoidance. MAS = masculinity.
IDV = individualism

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
274
Subsequently, a series of multiple-regression analyses was conducted to test
the extent to which the variance in transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership behaviours can be explained by the four cultural dimensions. To
predict the goodness of fit of the regression model, the multiple correlation
coefficient (R), R Square (R²), and F ratio were examined (Table 2).
Table 2
Results of Multiple-Regression Analysis of Transformational,
Transactional and Laissez-faire Leadership Behaviours as Dependent Variables
Variables Transformational
Betas
Transactional
Betas
Laissez-Faire
Betas
Power Distance .326* .113 -.229
Individualism -.070 -.122 -.146
Masculinity .061 .162 .042
Uncertainty Avoidance .081 .058 .100
Multiple R .358 .198 .283
R-square (R²) .128 .039 .080
Adjusted R² .088 -.006 .037
F ratio 3.169 .875 1.872
Significant F .018* .483 .123
*Significant level at the 0.05
Considering transformational leadership as a dependent variable, the
Multiple R of 0.358 indicated that the set of cultural dimensions had positive
relationships to transformational leadership behaviour. The value of R² (0.128)
was the variance in transformational leadership accounted by the four cultural
dimensions. The F ratio of 3.169 was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. In
effect, the model suggested that 12.8% of the variance in transformational
leadership behaviour was significantly explained by the four independent
dimensions.
To determine which independent variable/s in the multiple-regression
equation was a significant predictor of transformational leadership, we examined
coefficients. Table 2 shows that the power distance dimension was an only
significant predictor of transformational leadership behaviour (B1 = 0.326, p <
0.05), but that the other three dimensions were not. The beta value of the power
distance dimension indicated that, when the cultural dimension was changed,
transformational leadership also positively changed. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was
partially supported.
For transactional leadership, the multiple R of 0.198 indicated a weak
positive relationship between the set of cultural dimensions and transactional
leadership. The R² value of 0.039 and the F ratio of 0.875 at the non-significant
level suggested that the set of independent variables had little and non-significant
importance in contributing to transactional leadership. When examined, the beta
coefficients showed that each of the four variables was not a significant predictor

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
275
of the transactional dependent variable. As a result, hypothesis 2 was fully
supported.
Similar to the results obtained from those in the transactional leadership
regression model, the value of R² (0.080) and the F ratio of 1.872 at non-
significant levels suggested that the variation in laissez-faire leadership was not
significantly explained by the four independent dimensions. The beta coefficients
also suggested that none of the independent variables were significant predictors
of the laissez-faire leadership. As a result, hypothesis 3 was fully supported.
6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION
The results indicated that the four cultural values of Thai subordinates had a
very limited role in explaining the variance in transformational, transactional, and
non-leadership behaviours exhibited by Australian managers. The very limited
influence of the cultural dimensions on the three major leadership behaviours
seemed to support the universality of the transformational-transactional paradigm
proposed by Bass [1997].
Transformational leadership, according to Bass and Avolio [1997], raises
subordinates‟ awareness of the importance of desired outcomes, stimulates
subordinates‟ views of their work from new perspectives, develops subordinates
to higher levels of their ability and potential, and motivates subordinates to
transcend self-interest for the good of the organisation. These leadership
behaviours seem to be the ideal leadership behaviours for subordinates across
countries or cultures.
That transformational leadership helps increase subordinates‟ satisfaction,
enhance their effort, and allow them to be more effective has been reported by
several studies, whether they were conducted in Asia [e.g., Singer and Singer,
1990], North America [e.g., Sosik, 1997), Europe [e.g., Geyer and Steyrer, 1998]
or Asia-Pacific [e.g., Ingram, 1997]. When transformational leadership was
conducted in comparative cross-national studies, the attributes associated with
transformational leadership were seen as contributing to outstanding leadership
worldwide [Hartog et al., 1999]. Similar results were also found to apply in a
variety of organisations such as in the military [Atwater and Yammarino, 1993],
health [Medley and Larochelle, 1995], and informational technology [Thite,
1999]. Data even came from the study of leaders at different levels, such as in a
sample of teachers [Ingram, 1997], middle managers [Carless, Mann, and
Wearing, 1996], and executive leaders [Church and Waclawski, 1998].
6.1. Transformational Leadership and Its Universality
Transformational leadership could be seen as one aspect of a universal
leadership model (Figure 1). The model was developed as a result of reviewing
the seminal works in cross-cultural leadership literature such as Bass [1997],
Dorfman [1996], and Den Hartog et al. [1999].

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
276
The model in Figure 1 presents two important forces in enhancing the
universality of transformational leadership: internal- and external-driven forces.
The internal-driven force refers to the contents or attributions that operate within
transformational leadership in contributing to universal leadership. These
attributions include four components: simple universal, systematic behaviour
universal, functional universal, and flexibility [Bass, 1997].
Figure 1. The Universality of the Transformational Leadership Model
The second factor is externally driven environmental forces that help to boost
the perceptions of transformational leadership worldwide.
For the internal driven forces, the universality of the transformational
leadership is associated with three different types of universal phenomena.
Transformational leadership was consistent with the type of “simple universal”
that was described as a phenomenon, which is constant throughout the world. In
this regard, transformational leadership, regardless of cultures, has been
perceived as the most desired leadership behaviours when compared with the
other two leadership behaviours.
Transformational
Leadership
Patterns of
universal
leadership
behaviours
Internal Driven Forces
Simple universal
Systematic behaviour universal
Functional universal
Flexibility
External driven forces
Perceptional convergence
Pre-requirement of new
leadership
leadership

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
277
The type of “systematic behavioural universal,” explaining the relationship
about “if-then” outcomes across cultures, also can be found within
transformational leadership. For example, the findings by Muenjohn and
Armstrong [2001] revealed that, although Australian expatriates and Thai
subordinates had different cultural backgrounds, both groups held the same
perception that, if a leader exhibited transformational leadership behaviours, he
or she seemed to be perceived as more effective, satisfied, and increasing extra
effort than the three factors of transactional leadership and a non-leadership
factor.
The type of “functional universal” seems to exist within transformational
leadership. The functional universal existed when laissez-faire leadership
behaviour produced the same outcomes. Leaders who frequently avoided
responsibilities or decision-making were perceived as ineffective and
dissatisfying leaders, regardless of cultures.
The flexibility of transformational leadership is also included to represent
the internal-driven force in the model. The term “flexibility” refers to an ability
to practice both the participative and directive styles of transformational
leadership [Bass, 1997]. The flexibility of transformational leadership could
allow leaders to adapt their behaviours to conform to the requirement of their
subordinates‟ culture. For example, transformational leaders may adjust their
leadership styles to be more associated with directive rather than participative in
a society with a high power distance and where the directive approach is
preferred by subordinates.
As indicated earlier in Figure 1, two external environmental forces also
contribute to the universality of transformational leadership. The first external
force is the convergence of subordinate‟ perception of leadership worldwide.
There is a tendency for powerful forces, such as information technology, to drive
the world toward a converging commonality [Levitt, 1995]. This informational
technology, according to Ohmae [1994], not only internationally transfers
information or communication, but also carries people‟s perceptions from one
country to another. As a result, people‟s perceptions tend to become more alike
on many phenomena, such as the perception of ideal leadership behaviours. This
might explain why John F. Kennedy was admired by people in Eastern cultures
and Mahatma Gandhi was admired by Westerners [Bass, 1997].
The underlying assumption of the second external force is that the pre-
requirement of being an effective leader is becoming more alike across cultures.
In the 21st century, leaders are required, regardless of their cultures, to emphasize
their behaviours of providing a vision of the future, encouraging innovative ideas
or perceptions, coaching the development of individual capability, and
empowering their followers. All of these behaviours are central to
transformational leadership [Bass, 1997]. With no exception, leaders are required
to meet this requirement by developing their leadership behaviours to be
consistent with transformational leadership.

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
278
6.2. Transformational Leadership and Expatriate Managers
Since expatriates often hold positions at senior level, their leadership ability
is one of the prerequisite factors that contribute to the success of expatriate
managers [Katz and Seifer, 1996]. Expatriates who practice transformational
leadership have high levels of expectation and self-confidence and are thus
willing to work harder to accomplish difficult goals. They are likely to view the
overseas assignments with the excitement and challenge that make them see
overseas assignments as a positive opportunity to develop themselves. According
to Morrison and Beck [2000], expatriates who had self-confidence and positive
attitudes were reported to perform well in their overseas operations.
The ability to develop interpersonal relationships with the host-nation
subordinates has also emerged as an important factor in successful expatriate
managers [Jordan and Cartwright, 1998]. With transformational leadership,
expatriates build quality relationships with their subordinates through
“individualized consideration” by giving subordinates personal attention,
understanding subordinates‟ individual differences, and making subordinates feel
valued as receiving special treatment. Through these positive relationships,
transformational expatriates will be able to investigate the basis for the host
country‟s cultural differences and better understand the causes of their
subordinates‟ behaviours.
Expatriate managers who frequently exhibited transformational leadership
and those who frequently exhibited transactional leadership seem to emphasize
different goals. Under contingent reward transactional leadership, once rewards
were not provided or subordinates felt the rewards did not appeal, subordinates
might lack the incentive to perform to their full potential. Working under
expatriates who closely controlled their subordinates could also make
subordinates more dependent on their superiors‟ ability and knowledge [Cervone
and Wood, 1995] and that might reduce subordinates‟ self-efficacy and self-
achievement [Heslin, 1999].
Contrary to those who practice transactional leadership, transformational
expatriates raise subordinates‟ self-confidence and self-esteem by providing
challenging work and learning opportunities for their subordinates. As a result,
subordinates are more likely to be willing to develop their own abilities and be
able to take on leadership roles themselves. In particular, subordinates in
multinational corporations are required to rely more on themselves than on their
expatriate superiors. Expatriates can be rotated or relocated back to their home
headquarters, but organizational activities sometimes need to be maintained by
the subordinates in the host countries. Therefore, expatriate managers should lead
their subordinates in a way that improves subordinates‟ self-development. The
practices of transformational leadership appear to serve this purpose.
Expatriate training is another essential process that increases the chance
of success for expatriates. In terms of leadership training, multinational
corporations ideally should train their expatriates‟ leadership skills to conform to
a variety of different cultures. To achieve this objective, however, the

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
279
corporations might need patience and a long-term perspective [Adler and
Bartholomew, 1992]. It could take time for expatriates to acquire the various sets
of leadership skills that are required to be effective in different cultures.
Alternatively, perhaps the best option for corporations is to provide
leadership training programs designed to build universal leadership skills so that
expatriates could practice these skills without being affected by the host cultures.
In this case, transformational leadership could be one form of universal
leadership that MNCs should consider including in the leadership development
programs for their expatriates. As a result, expatriates could develop their
leadership skills and become transformational leaders. They will then be able to
lead subordinates in effective and satisfactory ways in whatever cultures they are
assigned. McFarlin and Sweeney [1998, p. 55] supported this point:
“. . . The most successful international manager in the future
will be a transformational leader. . . . This suggests that
managers around the world should be trained to become
transformational leaders.”
7. CONCLUSIONS
The findings revealed that the four cultural dimensions had no significant
impact on the transformational, transactional, and non-leadership behaviours,
with the exception of the small positive impact of power distance on
transformational leadership. These results, therefore, led to partially support
hypothesis 1 and fully support hypotheses 2 and 3. In general, the very limited
influence of the cultural dimensions on the three major leadership behaviours
seemed to support the universality of the transformational-transactional paradigm
proposed by Bass [1997] and the “etic” approach [Triandis, 1994].
It may not be appropriate to conclude that the nature of leadership
behaviours should be totally treated as a universal phenomenon. The degrees of
cultural values influencing leadership behaviours should depend on how one
defines or views “leadership.” However, when leadership behaviours were
captured by transformational leadership, as in this study, culture seemed to play a
limited role. The universality of the transformational leadership model proposed
in this study serves as a basic explanation and contributes to a better
understanding of how the internal and external forces contribute to a near
universalistic position for transformational leadership.
Although this research provided some interesting results, there are some
limitations and recommendations for future research arising that should be
recognized and addressed. The investigation of the current study employed
specific theoretical frameworks: Bass‟s transformational leadership and
Hofstede‟s four cultural dimensions. Since the relationships between culture and
leadership behaviours are still sensitive and unresolved issues [Dorfman, 1996],
whether other theories may produce either similar or different results remains an
open research question.

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
280
Further research might focus on one of the core cultural dimensions such as
femininity since some authors have argued that transformational leadership is
inherently more feminine than masculine [e.g., Bass, Avolio, and Atwater, 1996].
Also, future research may wish to address other factors that influence leadership
behaviours, such as the personality attributes of both leaders and subordinates. On
transformational leadership, some previous studies had reported the significant
contribution of individual differences from leaders and subordinates of the same
cultural background [e.g., Atwater and Yammarino 1993; Howell and Avolio,
1993]. The personality attributes of successful leaders may also vary substantially
as between cultures and help to understand the wider implications of leadership
styles.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J., and Bartholomew, S. 1992. Managing globally competent people, Academy
of Management Executives 6, 52-65.
Atwater, L.., and Yammarino, F. 1993. Personal attributes as predictors of superiors‟ and
subordinates‟ perceptions of military academy leadership, Human Relations 46(5),
645-668.
Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill‟s Handbook of Leadership, 3 rd ed., New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B.M. 1997. Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. 1997. Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, CA, Mind Garden.
Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J.; and Atwater, L. 1996. The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women, Applied Psychology: An International Review
45(1), 5-34.
Blunt, P., and Jones, M.L. 1997. Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in
East Asia and Africa, Personnel Review 26(1 / 2), 6-23.
Boyacigiller, N.A.; Kleinberg, M.J.; Phillips, M.E.; and Sackmann, S.A. 1996.
Conceptualizing culture, In: Punnet, B.J., and Shenkar, O., eds. Handbook for
International Management Research, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 157-208.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.
Carless, S.; Mann, L.; and Wearing, A. 1996. Transformational leadership and teams,
In: Perry, K.W., ed., Leadership Research and Practice: Emerging Themes and
New Challenges, Melbourne: Pitman, 77-90.
Cervone, D., and Wood, R. 1995. Goals, feedback, and the differential influence of self-
regulatory processes on cognitively complex information, Cognitive Therapy and
Research 19, 519-545.
Chemers, M.M. 1997. An Integrative Theory of Leadership, London: Lowrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
281
Church, A., and Waclawski, J. 1998. The relationship between individual personality
orientation and executive leadership behavior, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 71(2), 99-125.
Den Hartog, D.N.; House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A.; and Dorfman, P. W.
1999. Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership
theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally
endorsed? Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 219-257.
Den Hartog, D.N.; Van Muijen, J.; and Koopman, P. 1997. Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 70(1), 19-34.
Dorfman, P. 1996. International and cross-cultural leadership, In: Punnett, B.J., and
Shenkar, O., eds., Handbook for International Management Research, MA:
Blackwell Publisher, 267-349.
Dubinsky, A.J.; Yammarino, F.; Jolson, M.A., and Spangler, W.D. 1995.
Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management, The
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15(2), 17-31.
Edwards, R.; Edwards, J.; and Muthaly, S. 1995. Doing Business in Thailand: Essential
Background Knowledge and First Hand Advice, Melbourne: Asian Business
Research Unit, Monash University.
Elenkov, D.S. 1997. Differences and similarities in managerial values between U.S. and
Russian managers, International Studies of Management and Organization 27(1),
85-106.
Geyer, A.L.J., and Steyrer, J.M. 1998. Transformational leadership and objective
performance in banks, Applied Psychology: An International Review 47(3), 397-
420.
Hair, J.F.; Rolph, E.A.; Ronald, L.T.; and William, C.B. 1998. Multivariate Data
Analysis, 5th ed., NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harris, P.R., and Moran, R.T. 1996. Managing Cultural Differences, 4th ed., Houston:
Gulf Publishing.
Helgstrand, K., and Stuhlmacher, A. 1999. National culture: an influence on leader
evaluations? The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 7(2), 153-168.
Heslin, P.A. 1999. Boosting empowerment by developing self-efficacy, Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources 37(1), 52-64.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture‟s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, abridged ed., Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. 1995. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply
Abroad? In: Bartlett, C.A., and Ghoshal, S., eds., Transnational Management:
Text, Cases, and Readings in Cross-Border Management, 2 nd ed., Boston: Irwin-
McGraw-Hill, 193-211.
Howell, J.M., and Avolio, B.J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated business-unit performance, Journal of Applied Psychology 78(6),
891-902.
Humphreys, J.H., and Einstein, W.O. 2003. Nothing new under the sun: transformational
leadership from a historical perspective, Management Decision 41(1), 85-95.
Ingram, P.D. 1997. Leadership behaviours of principals in inclusive educational settings,
Journal of Educational 35(5), 411-427.
Jordan, J., and Cartwright, S. 1998. Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and
competencies, Leadership and Organization Development Journal19(2), 89-96.

Transformational Leadership:
The Influence of Culture on Leadership Behaviours
International Journal of Business and Information
282
Jung, D.I.; Bass, B.M.; and Sosik, J.J. 1995. Bridging leadership and culture: A
theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures,
The Journal of Leadership Studies 2(No. 4), 3-18.
Katz, J.P., and Seifer, D.M. 1996. It‟s a different world out there: Planning for expatriate
success through selection, pre-departure training and on-site socialization, Human
Resource Planning 19(2), 32-47.
Kirkbride, P. 2006. Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model
in action, Industrial and Commercial Training 38(1), 23-32.
Krejcie, R.V., and Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities,
Educational and Psychological Measurement 30(3), 607-610.
Kroeber, A.L., and Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, XLVII(1), 1-223.
Kuchinke, P. 1999. Leadership and culture: work-related values and leadership styles
among one company‟s U.S. and German telecommunication employees, Human
Resource Development Quarterly 10(2), 135-154.
Levitt. T. 1995. The globalization of markets, In: Bartlett, C.A., and Ghoshal, S., eds.,
Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and Reading in Cross–Border
Management, 2nd ed., Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 183-193.
Madzar, S. 2005. Subordinates‟ information inquiry in uncertain times: a cross-cultural
consideration of leadership style effect, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management 5(3) 255-273.
McFarlin, D.B., and Sweeney, P.D. 1998. International Management: Trends, Challenges
and Opportunities, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.
Mead, R. 1998. International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Medley, F., and Larochelle, D.R. 1995. Transformational leadership and job satisfaction,
Nursing Management 26(9), 64-69.
Morrison, A., and Beck, J. 2000. Taking trouble: the key to effective global attention,
Strategy and Leadership 28(2), 26-32.
Muenjohn, N., and Armstrong, A. 2001. Leadership and performance: the impact of the
leadership behaviours of Australian expatriates on work outcomes (Paper accepted
at The 2001 International Conference in Management Sciences, June 2, 2001,
Taiwan, ROC).
Northouse, P.G. 1997. Leadership: Theory and Practice, California: Sage Publications.
Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ohmae, K 1994 Managing in a borderless world, In: Wit, B.D., and Meyer, R., eds.,
Strategy, Minneapolis: West Publishing Company, 489-495.
Punch, K.F. 1998. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative & Qualitative
Approaches, London: Sage Publications.
Sekaran, U. 2000. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 3 rd ed.,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Singer, M.S., and Singer, A.E. 1990. Situational constraints on transformational versus
transactional leadership behaviour, subordinates‟ leadership preference, and
satisfaction, The Journal of Social Psychology 130(3), 385-396.
Singleton Jr., R.A.; Straits, B.C.; and Straits, M.M. 1993. Approaches to Social
Research, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Muenjohn and Armstrong
Volume 2, Number 2, December 2007
283
Sosik, J. 1997. Effect of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in
computer-mediated groups, Group & Organization Management 22(4), 460-487.
Spreitzer, G.M.; Perttula, K.H.; and Xin, K. 2005. Traditionality matters: an
examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United
States and Taiwan, Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 205-227.
Thite, M. 1999. Identifying key characteristics of technical project leadership,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 20(5), 253-261.
Thompson, A. 1981. The Establishment and Operating Experiences of Australian
Companies in Thailand, Melbourne: Melbourne University.
Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behaviour, U.S.: McGraw-Hill.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Nuttawuth Muenjohn, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the School of Management, RMIT
University in Melbourne, Australia. His current research interests include leadership,
expatriate management, and managing in cross-cultural issues.
Anona Armstrong, Ph.D., is a professor of governance and director of the Centre for
International Corporate Governance Research (CICGR), Faculty of Business and Law,
Victoria University, Australia.