The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With globalisation and cogitate intensification of hand and commerce effective lead has become indispensable in the crease world. W present tralatitiously the business draw took the per centuming of commanding the military man towards intensity and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades. The service application rise, fel first gearship charge trends, change magnitude workforce diversity unite with inter depicted objectistic merchandise and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the design of the leader in the modern shaping. legion(predicate) unattackables argon in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess charm leading directions to cope effectively with different value musical arrangements and coatings (Fahy, 2002 Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of ranked structures has as well contri preciselyed to this reshaping butt as tradit ional sources of say-so, upon which lead accept built on for years, have been diminished.unite with the rise of new trading powers such(prenominal) as the Asiatic Dragon, business leadinghip, especially in international MNEs do non only face domestic multi ethnicism and diversity but ar besides increasingly expatriated. then completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges ar face up requiring understanding of cultural determine as well as degenerate cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leading abilities into foreign markets. unite with steadily move up free- pictureprise(a) pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role non easily filled.Despite lead being a universal concept ( mystifying, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistally oriented) US, it has been questi sensation and only(a)d to what extend westward leading elbow rooms be cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leading is culturally particular, if universal leaders qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variables argon (S peckdura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leaders diversity and possible congruence betwixt the UK and Japan using academic standard of national ending Hofstedes mannikin priseively. The contiguous section get out give an over run into over the concept of lead f ared by an in-depth cultural wish wellness and concluding section. 4The term lead incorporates some elements of controversy over its substance and coiffures. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural map settings makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002).This seems unsurprise as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between husbandrys. N invariablythe slight, patronage cultural differences the majority of lead definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being math ematical group, forge and goal (Bryman, 1992). Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the process of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desire outcome. (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or flat out utter leadership is the ability to get lot to do what they dont like to do and like itWhilst this is a very basic get of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural scope and elevatedlights an important back breaker In order to lead wiz inevitably chase (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges w hereby 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 design of this power, combined with leading by ensample (Pfeffer, 1981) impart pass on in positive and proactive guidance lift creativity, fundament, commitment and long te rm judicatureal development. 6However, this is questionable and it seems that far too a great deal 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 blaspheme on forms of power to modulate low-altitudes, a lottimes actually relinquishing positive authoritarian control.This is collectable to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is of all time a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders postulate some foundation of authority may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, magnetised or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style much related to operational, task guidanceed managers. peculiarly in westerly economies with overriding service industries, innovation and knowledge ma nagement, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no longer seem sufficient to extract the secure effectiveness of an increasingly knowledgeable, highschoolly skilled and demanding workforce. Such, arguably softer approaches raising employee appointment and alliance have nevertheless been proven to extend in increased organisational effect (Bass, 1996 1997 House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more than(prenominal) ideal forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This world power be relevant to westward societies except a cross-cultural induction world power be prejudiced and the influence of individual(prenominal) determine and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential persona of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952 Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al. , 199 8 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 unrivaled 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(prenominal) ii arguably being capaciously shaped by the former. elective or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding ride differences and good behaviour as well as organisational military postures towards factors such as centralization and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only pass on such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will lots even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches magnate not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm uphold competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 capital of Mississippi and Aycan, 2001 Pfeffer, 2002).The next section will habilitateigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as theoretical accounts. 9British leadership style has ofttimes been described as more routine in nature raising groupwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to ease up authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative mannequins.This check 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 essential actualize a collective will and take personal right for it speckle continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Unsurprisingly, net workings capability and people management skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this ( collectivized) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a rail towards achieving organisational localises and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevancy to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction impels leaders towards task orientation oft combined with a short-term out feeling. As such busy, short-term organisational (financial) victory is o ften more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting tally to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low hesitancy avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially refunding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, notwithstanding team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot cut through their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualization, stop number and calculate (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core single attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude unendingly resurf aces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter troth contracts. Employees do not look for lifetime body of work and a steady career in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and development of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively want after and on purpose created assertive and competitive surround amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high manlike attitude as Hofstedes culture scale distinctly out limns.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will go 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 continual working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Nipponese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990 Tan, 1986) and despite rising westward influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk to a lower place the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially taking the family as a model for gild at large, Confucianism is essentially authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and stern organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to sign high than the UK in Hofstedes power blank index, and so thusly 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 asse rtiveness-authority and indicate tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Nipponese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and regard with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendou I think nigh your, I will take care of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Nipponese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects dowry 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 quite than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, toughie and guidanceed on material success (Hofstede, 199 8) leadership.It is here where Hofstedes good example seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power outdistance stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than motion would be judge (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 inconsistency to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for sign work placement, greater focus upon (soft) people skills and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions system (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision- devising despite extremely high mascu linity 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 generally 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 explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting stimulation and consensus from all parties involved sooner decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of wa (maintaining fond relationships) and kao (maintaining face) actually want the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of conformity rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour in subdue. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leaders hip practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture dictated by short-term financial objectives with spoiled 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 feature often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japans extremely high misgiving avoidance score and is further back up by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued traffic rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UKs burn out environment fostering high staff turnover. strange in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees suitable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value u pon specialists than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) duty (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is normally considered more important than gainfulness and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, excessively Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. correspond to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably unite high levels of both (Misumi, 1995). If this is achieved, such positive or participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic frolic 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 th at unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subject to great in as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a shading 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 gorge of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect give to status differences.While Hofstedes framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstedes framework is not free of blame and arguably is outdated, limit ed in background knowledge of methodology and bar (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 conflicting results for similar 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 commanding the troops towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades.The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation. Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002 Coviello et al., 1998).Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as 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 increasingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are confront 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 dissimilitude 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 par 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). Thi s 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 undertake of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point In order to lead one ask 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 depone on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing semi-formal authoritarian control. This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is of all time a voluntary activity.Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders fill 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 & Koopma n, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focusedmanagers. Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the 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 arguably 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 person al 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 authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to eac h 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 flatter 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 titl e 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 (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short- term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership 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 structured 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 attitud e constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts.Employees do not look for lifetime employment and a steady career in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstedes culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on prod uctivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990 Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstedes power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of asser tiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendou I think about your, I will take care of you (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968 Bass et al. 1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadershi p. 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 background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) people skills and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994).The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance. Essentially a bottom-up (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). 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 employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UKs burn out environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western c ultures.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 this is achieved, such supportive orparticipative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction (Keys and Miller, 1982, p. 6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK. However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working e nvironment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western farce of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstedes framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstedes framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in scope of methodology a nd 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.