Leadership Preferences In Japan 2007

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ 28,6

Leadership preferences in Japan: an exploratory study

508

Bradford University School of Management, Bradford, UK

Aya Fukushige and David P. Spicer

Received August 2006 Revised March 2007 Accepted March 2007

Abstract Purpose – The paper aims to explore Japanese followers’ leadership preferences and consider the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model in Japan. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative approach is used predominantly, including template analyses and several content analyses. Data collection is divided into two phases: Phase 1 was conducted by semi-structured interviews and Phase 2 by questionnaires. Findings – Results suggest the unsuitability of Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model in a Japanese context, indicate some impact of cultural changes in Japan, and identify liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective, and after-five as Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles. Research limitations/implications – The paper indicates that in a Japanese context not only is the new leadership approach of Bass and Avolio’s model of value but also the traditional approach of House’s path-goal theory. Whilst the qualitative data of this study give insight into existing theories and leadership perspectives in Japan, findings should be further examined in future research. Practical implications – The paper offers guidance for leaders who deal with Japanese followers by identifying leadership styles within Bass and Avolio’s model, and culture-specific leadership styles which are particularly preferred by Japanese followers. Originality/value – This paper identified that, building upon Bass and Avolio’s and House’s leadership theories, a new Japanese leadership model, which particularly suits contemporary Japanese followers’ leadership preferences, should be developed. Keywords Cross-cultural management, Leadership, Japan Paper type Research paper

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 28 No. 6, 2007 pp. 508-530 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730710780967

Introduction There has been a strong North-American bias in leadership research (Blair and Hunt, 1986; Den Hartog and Dickson, 2004). One of the most well-known leadership theories over the past two decades, Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model, is archetypal of this bias, yet it is proponents often claim that this model applies universally (Bass, 1996). However, whilst a great deal of literature has investigated Japanese management practices, research on leadership in Japan has been relatively sparse. Only a few empirical studies have been conducted in Japan (Yokochi-Bryce, 1989), and given cultural differences (Hofstede, 2001; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985), it is reasonable to speculate there may be culture-specific elements of leadership and Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model might not be completely applicable to Japan. The present study therefore looks to explore whether cultural differences influence leadership preferences and hence the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s model to a Japanese context. Furthermore, researchers have tended to focus on leaders, and leadership has “tended to be defined from the perspectives of leaders and not of followers” (Meindl, 1995, p. 329). Very little research has considered followers’ leadership preferences (Brain and Lewis, 2004; Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Littrell and Valentin, 2005;

Vecchio and Boatwright, 2002). This represents a significant avenue for study given that leader effectiveness is potentially defined by the responses of those around them (Erez and Earley, 1993). This study therefore seeks to make a further contribution by examining followers’ leadership preferences. This research therefore aims to consider the applicability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model and explore the nature of follower’s leadership preferences in Japan, as well as considering whether any culturally specific aspects of leadership can be identified. It begins by reviewing literature considering Japanese culture and Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model, and describing the data collection methods employed. It then moves to present the results and offer discussion in relation to three research questions defined below. Implications for research and practice are also suggested. Japanese culture and the full-range leadership model Bass’s (1985) and Bass and Avolio’s (1997) “full-range leadership Model” which conceptualizes transformational and transactional forms of leadership has perhaps been the most cited source for leadership researchers in the past two decades. From this model, they have developed the “The multifactor leadership questionnaire” (MLQ), the latest version of which (MLQ Form 5X; Bass and Avolio, 2000) consists of five transformational leadership scales, three transactional leadership scales, and one non-leadership scale (Table I). Empirical studies considering the full-range leadership model through the MLQ have proliferated (Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Howell and Higgins, 1990), with most being undertaken in the USA and Anglo-Saxon countries (Avolio et al., 1999; Tejeda et al., 2001). Work exploring the full-range leadership model in other cultural contexts is limited. Yet, Bass (1997) suggests that the model is universal regardless of cultural differences, with transformational leadership styles being seen as more effective than transactional. However, it is evident that other cultures, and notably for our purpose, Japan (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Trompenaars, 1993) differ significantly from the USA, where Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range model was developed and hence approaches to leadership might similarly differ. Hodgetts and Luthans (2002, p. 431) suggest that “culture can create some problems in using universal leadership concepts in countries such as Japan.” Indeed, Yokochi-Bryce’s (1989) research indicates that Japanese leaders display management-by-exception and Laissez-faire more frequently than contingent reward, at odds with the expectations of the full-range leadership model. Bass (1997, p. 132) in commenting on Yokochi-Bryce’s (1989) findings, explained that there are some situations where universality breaks down. It therefore seems evident that there is sufficient cause to question the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model in Japan and to explore culture-specific conceptualizations of leadership. Accepting that culture plays an important role in understanding leadership in Japan, means that a deeper understanding of Japanese contemporary culture is required. Researchers, often refer to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) research indicating that Japan is moderate on power distance and individualism, and high on masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. However, these ratings are based upon data obtained between 1967 and 1973, and although it is argued that national cultures are extremely stable over time (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997; Hofstede, 2001), some researchers

Leadership preferences in Japan 509

LODJ 28,6

Transformational leadership

Idealized influence attributed Idealized influence behaviors

510

Inspirational motivation

Intellectual stimulation

Individualized consideration

Transactional leadership

Contingent reward

Management by exception active

Non-leadership

Table I. Definitions of Bass and Avolio’s nine leadership scales

Management by exception passive Laissez-faire

These leaders have the socialized charisma. They are perceived as being confident and powerful, and viewed as focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics. Followers admire, respect, and trust these leaders as a role model and want to emulate leaders These leaders behave in ways that their actions are centred on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission. The leaders consider the needs of others over their own personal needs, and share risks with followers. They are consistent rather than arbitrary These leaders motivate and inspire followers by providing meaning and challenge to work. Team spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. These leaders get followers involved in envisioning attractive future states and create communicated expectations that followers want to meet and demonstrate commitment to goals and shared visions These leaders stimulate followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions These leaders pay special attention to the needs of each individual follower for achievement and growth. Followers are developed to successively higher levels of potential. A two-way communication is encouraged and “management by walking around” is practiced These leaders are found to be reasonably effective, although not as much as the five “I”s’ in motivating others to achieve higher levels of performance. These leaders assign agreements on what needs to be done and promise rewards or actually reward followers in exchanging for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment These leaders are found to be less effective than “Contingent Reward,” but still required in certain situations. They arrange to actively monitor deviances from standards, mistakes, and errors in the followers’ assignments and to take corrective action as necessary These leaders wait passively for deviances, mistakes, and errors to occur, and then take corrective action These leaders represent avoidance or absence of leadership. They avoid making decisions, abandon responsibility, and do not use authority. This is considered the most inactive, as well as ineffective approach to leadership by almost all research on leadership style

Source: Adapted from Avolio and Bass (2002) and Antonakis et al. (2003)

(Ajiferuke and Boddewyn, 1970; Ralston et al., 1997; Whitehill and Arthur, 1964) claim that cultures can change and develop. As a result of internationalisation and widespread management education which reflects Western values and practices, Japanese values may well have converged with Western (Kroll, 1993; Littrell and Valentin, 2005; Shibata, 2000). Moreover, the recent economic recession in Japan might have accelerated cultural change. In fact, during 1970s and 1980s, unique Japanese cultural values, such as consensus decision making, loyalty to firms, and lifetime employment were recognized (Dore, 1973; Murakami, 1984; Nakae, 1970; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos, 1981); however, since 1990s, some of these have changed (French, 2000; Hodgetts and Luthans, 1989, 2002; Modic, 1987; Morishima, 1995; Sano, 1993; Shibata, 2000; Wonoroff, 1992). For example, consensus decision making is no longer seen as effective (Hodgetts and Luthans, 2002), and economic pressures mean lifetime employment has become difficult to maintain (Takahashi and Murakami, 2004). These shifts necessitate our attention in order to properly explore the link between leadership and culture in Japan, and therefore, another objective of this study is to identify respondents’ perceptions of contemporary Japanese culture and investigate its impact upon leadership preferences. Furthermore, recently there has been a growing criticism of “leader-centric” perspective in leadership studies (Meindl, 1995; Popper and Druyan, 2001). Yet a leader can be ineffective “if followers do not accept and commit themselves” (Erez and Earley, 1993, p. 184). A further objective of this study is therefore to examine how Japanese followers perceive their ideal leaders. The research reported below therefore takes Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model as its basis and seeks to explore the suitability of this for followers in Japan. In addressing this, suitability consideration is given also to the extent to which Japanese contemporary culture has changed, given that movement in culture towards a more “Western” model might influence the acceptability of differing leadership styles. These aims can be summarized in three research questions: RQ1. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers regarding contemporary culture? RQ2. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers towards Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model? RQ3. Are there aspects of leadership not covered by Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model, which can be defined as culture-specific conceptualizations of Japanese leadership? Methods An exploratory approach was employed to look at Japanese followers perceptions of leadership and culture. Data collection consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was conducted by semi-structured interviews with 12 Japanese subjects (seven males and five females), average age was 32.5. A random sampling technique was used. Participants were Japanese employees who recognize themselves as followers working under Japanese leaders, drawn from a cross-section of industries in Japan. All interviews initially asked three broad questions: “How do you recognize Japanese leadership?,” “What kind of leader do you prefer to work with?,” and “How do you recognize Japanese culture?” The order of subsequent questions varied from interview to

Leadership preferences in Japan 511

LODJ 28,6

512

interview, exploring themes developed in response to these questions, although the last one always enquired as to respondents’ perceptions of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership styles. Data from Phase 1 were analyzed by “Template analysis” (King, 1998, 2006). A “template” is basically a list of codes, which can be determined both based upon existing literature/theory, and amended or added to as data are collected (King, 1998). This method can be employed to analyse any form of textual data, and matched the epistemological position of the current study, which seeks to discover the underlying perceptions of Japanese followers by using a priori codes, reflecting areas highlighted in advance as important in relation to the research questions and from relevant literature (King, 2006). The initial template contained codes for “Japanese culture,” “Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership styles,” and “Japanese leadership styles.” It was modified in the light of ongoing analysis through “insertion” (King, 1998) by which the researchers identified new issues related to each research question (but not covered by existing codes). Phase 2 was conducted by questionnaire with 57 Japanese subjects (38 males and 19 females; the average age was 33.1). Again, a random sampling frame was adopted with respondents drawn from a range of industries. The questionnaire contained 15 questions (constructed from the findings of Phase 1, which was illustrated in the finalized template; Figure 1) which enquired as to perceptions of actual and preferred leadership (including Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model) and of Japanese culture. Examples of questions are included in the results below. Phase 2 was analyzed by “Content analysis” which is ideal for condensing textual materials by identifying their structural properties (Thomas, 2004). Content analyses were conducted with both “assumed categories” (based upon existing literature), and “inferred categories” (drawn from the text analyzed) (Insch et al., 1997). Each item was assigned to a category where it fitted best, following the “single classification” rule (Harris, 2001; Weber, 1990). All interviews and questionnaires were conducted in Japanese, and translated into English by the authors. Results of interviews (Phase 1) The results of the 12 interviews are summarized in the finalized template (Figure 1). The main categories are Japanese culture, Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model, and Japanese leadership styles, which tie into the research questions outlined above. Each of these is described below. Changes in Japanese culture When interviews mentioned any concepts to relevant “Japanese culture,” authors added these, as new codes under it, and here, male chauvinism, collectivism, seniority, and cultural changes were classified as the level-two codes. Cultural changes was further expanded with additional codes that explained the nature of changes observed under the first three codes (Figure 1). Six interviewees implied that Japanese culture and management systems have been changing due to internationalisation, the burst of the bubble economy, and the Asian financial crisis. They identified a change from male chauvinism to more gender equality, as evidenced in the growth in numbers of female employees in all kinds of

Leadership preferences in Japan 513

Figure 1. Finalized template

work places in Japan. Two (male) interviewees did suggest, however, that from their perspective male chauvinism was still present. Two interviewees indicated that collectivism was part of Japanese culture. In contrast, two interviewees suggested there had been change from collectivism to individualism: I don’t think the idea of Japanese collectivism is entirely wrong. But these days, we rather try to make the individualist society and therefore in my company, at least, we don’t do “making collusive agreements in a group” or “excluding those who stand out from a group” any more (Male, 33).

Finally, whilst two interviewees saw seniority as a continuing aspect of Japanese work culture, five indicated that meritocracy was on the increase: Japanese culture has been changed. For example, a well-known concept of “seniority” has already been replaced by the Western “meritocracy.”.In this situation, people gradually realize that Japanese typical notions of “teamwork” or “shared fate” don’t really make sense any more (Male, 36).

LODJ 28,6

514

Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model In the template under the category of “Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership styles,” nine sub-categories were identified, based upon Bass and Avolio’s (1997) theoretical framework (Figure 1), and 11 out of the 12 interviewees[1] provided their opinions on these. Firstly, although idealized influence attributed is one of the five transformational leadership styles which are supposed to be the most effective in enhancing performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), there were only two interviewees who described these leaders as effective. Nine interviewees expressed negative responses towards this concept: This kind of leader must have too much confidence in himself, and sounds like a hot-blooded man. I want my leader to be cool and modest, who can listen humbly to the voice of followers (Female, 28).

Six interviewees expressed a desire for leaders who exhibit idealized influence behaviors. They liked the idea that such a leader emphasizes the importance of a collective sense of mission, and considers the consequences of decisions. However, five interviewees showed negative reactions, suggesting that the most important thing in business is “results.” Again, although a transformational leadership styles, inspirational motivation was endorsed by only three interviewees. Others suggested that a leader who talks optimistically about future was no longer effective after the burst of the Japanese economy. They explained that what followers need from a leader today is proper risk management and contingency plans, rather than “everything will be all right!” A leader who adopts intellectual stimulation was seen positively by all interviewees, in the sense that such leaders can solve the problems and, as a consequence, gains followers’ trust: I really appreciate it if my leader can suggest the new and “step-up” ways of looking at how to complete tasks. With his help, I’m sure that I can become a key player in the near future, who can analyse tasks/problems from various perspectives (Female, 28).

Individualized consideration was supported by seven interviewees. Such leaders were identified as effective as companies increasingly focus on individual competences, following the growth of meritocracy in Japan. The remaining interviewees were concerned that group targets might not be met if concentration was on individual needs. Contingent reward, a transactional leadership style, supposed to be less effective than the five transformational leadership styles in motivating followers to perform higher levels of performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), was nevertheless supported by eight interviewees. They argued that the relationship between rewards and performance this represents was likely to enhance motivation: Especially, for competent followers, this type of leader can be quite effective. It seems that the more you work, the more you get, which is the easiest and straightforward rule for followers to pursue (Male, 36).

For management-by-exception active, apart from one interviewee claiming this was indispensable, the remainder did not endorse it. They noted that although they understand that such a style is sometimes necessary, these leaders often cause a tense

atmosphere in the office and decrease followers’ motivation. Similarly, management-by-exception passive was not endorsed by any interviewees at all, and, all interviewees clearly expressed negative reactions towards a laissez-faire approach. Japanese leadership styles In discussing their perceptions of actual Japanese leadership styles, interviewees mentioned, directive leadership, participative leadership, social activities outside work, and overtime-work (Figure 1). Two interviewees explained that their leaders are directive and give followers specific orders, whereas three interviewees mentioned participative leadership. Two saw this as leaders consulting with followers and listening to their ideas. One claimed that this style might cause a problem if it led to leaders avoiding making their own decisions. “Social activities outside work” was identified as significant by eight interviewees. Seven respondents claimed that these activities were beneficial, since they allowed followers to know their leaders better, and exchange information with them. Overtime-work was mentioned by six interviewees. All seemed to accept that there was a certain degree of “overtime-work” in Japanese companies, although some interviewees suggested that certain leadership styles could impact on the length of overtime-work. For example, one interviewee who described his current leader as directive explained that his leader reduced the amount of overtime-work by giving followers direct orders. Another pointed out that her leader’s behavior increases the length of her overtime-work. Since, this leader always stayed late in the office, it was hard for them to go home even having finished their own work. She explained that, in the end, there is no motivation for followers to work efficiently, because they felt that they had to stay in the office until their leader left. Turning to preferred leadership styles, respondents identified protective leadership, network leadership and gender equality. Protective leadership was mentioned by four interviewees whose ideal leader was able to stand up for and protect followers from senior managers. Network leadership was referred to by three interviewees who expected a leader to know how to develop followers’ career-path by influencing those in power: My ideal leader is one who has a good network in the company and uses it for his own followers, because the leader’s network and connection are very critical for us. Even for being picked as a member of the in-house training course conducted twice a year at a nice country cottage, we need to have a leader’s reference, and the selection process depends on it (Female, 32).

Gender equality was mentioned by three interviewees. Two of them saw this as fitting current Japanese society where the number of female employees has increased, and said that they preferred leaders who give followers a chance regardless of gender. However, one interviewee claimed that adoption of gender equality had been superficial, since the idea had been brought by American consultancy companies without any adjustments for Japan. Results of questionnaires (Phase 2) The results of questionnaire are presented below, employing the same categories, linked to the research questions, employed above.

Leadership preferences in Japan 515

LODJ 28,6

516

Changes in Japanese culture The results of a question asking whether respondents found cultural convergence between Japanese and Western cultures due to globalization/internationalisation indicate that 30 respondents (52.6 percent) felt that it had, 24 (42.1 percent) felt that it had not, and three (5.3 percent) were “undecided.” Interestingly, most of those who saw this happening commented that convergence was particularly occurring in the Japanese business context: Whether we wish it or not, cultural integration/convergence, particularly in the work place exists already. My company has already adopted the idea of “Meritocracy”; so we can no longer rely on our traditional principles of “Amae”[2] (Male, 39).

Similarly, those who felt convergence had not occurred, pointed out that cultural stability occurred outside work, suggesting that whilst in business there might be convergence, nothing had really changed, especially in Japanese home life. The next question was related to the cultural changes in the Japan identified in Phase 1. About 41 respondents (71.9 percent) indicated that they felt change to “Gender equality” had occurred. Whilst this indicates that the majority of respondents agreed on the advancement of women into business, comments brought out its downside too. Three respondents particularly mentioned the poor support systems for women. More than half of the respondents (34; 59.6 percent) agreed that change from collectivism to individualism was occurring. Comments indicated that this might be a result of the uptake of American management practices. Finally, 40 respondents (70.2 percent) recognized the shift from seniority to meritocracy, seeing this as largely a result of the economic pressures in Japan. Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model Respondents were also asked an open question: “What type of leader(s) do you prefer to work with?” About 51 respondents provided usable responses. Initially these were compared through content analyses with nine “assumed categories” drawn from Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model. As shown in Table II, a total of 28 units were classified into these categories. Frequency counts show that individualized consideration is most preferred (by 11 of the 51 respondents). Intellectual stimulation has seven positive respondents, followed by contingent reward with five. Management-by-exception passive and laissez-faire received no support.

Table II. Content analysis with 13 assumed categories

Leadership theory

Assumed categories

Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model

1. Idealized influence attributed 2. Idealized influence behavior 3. Inspirational motivation 4. Intellectual stimulation 5. Individualized consideration 6. Contingent reward 7. Management-by-exception active 8. Management-by-exception passive 9. Laissez-Faire

Frequency 1 1 1 7 11 5 2 0 0

Respondents were also asked to indicate their preferences for Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model directly. The results show that two transformational leadership styles, idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation, were not strongly endorsed (Figure 2). For the former, only 16 respondents (28.1 percent) preferred it, and comments show that Japanese followers reacted negatively towards the notions of power and the good of the group at the center of this style. Only 22 respondents (38.6 percent) preferred inspirational motivation. Comments indicated that, as in Phase 1, this was because Japanese followers stopped being positive about leaders’ optimism following the burst of the economy. One of the transactional leadership styles, contingent reward is notable. This is supposed to be less effective than transformational leadership styles in motivating followers to achieve higher levels of performance, but was actually endorsed more than idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, or inspirational motivation (Figure 2). About 34 respondents (59.6 percent) preferred contingent reward. Comments suggested that this “classic concept” is easy for followers to understand as it allows for “give and take [and] the more you work, the more you get.” Finally, laissez-faire was not endorsed by any respondents at all (Figure 2). All comments pointed out the negative aspects of this leadership approach.

Leadership preferences in Japan 517

Japanese leadership styles Again actual and preferred leadership styles are considered. Regarding the perceptions of actual leadership styles, responses to “What kind of leadership styles does your leader use at work?” were examined. About 49 out of 57 respondents provided usable responses. Nine inferred categories were identified as a result of the content analysis (Table III summarizes these and provides examples of each). The most frequently-mentioned style is participative leadership which is followed by directive leadership. Third is authoritarian leadership, and fourth is protective leadership. Bargaining and laissez-faire come next, followed by supportive leadership. Least mentioned are punctual and egocentric leadership. The results of a question: “Does your current leader emphasise ‘Male chauvinism’ ‘Collectivism’ and ‘Seniority’ at work?” (trends identified in Phase 1) revealed that the majority though not for “Male chauvinism” (36 respondents; 63.2 percent) and

Figure 2. Endorsement of Japanese subjects (N ¼ 57) for each leadership style

LODJ 28,6

Frequency counts

Inferred categories

11

Participative

8

Directive

7

Authoritarian

6

Protective

5

Bargaining

5

Laissez-faire

518

Table III. Content analysis with inferred categories

Units of analysis: phrase (frequency counts) Participative leadership (6) In my case (i.e. equity dealer/securities), everybody works individually for own benefit, which however also brings the profits to the company. Therefore, my leader observes every move that we make and gives us advice based upon his experience Consultative leadership (4) My leader basically consults us “Do you have an idea how to do this?” and allocates tasks to each of us. Then, he will get all of our jobs together later. He is never an authoritarian type My leader always asks me in the first place that “I want to do it in this way. What do you think?” So, instead of forcing us to follow his order, he asks followers’ opinions and takes them into consideration. For example, when we had to make the company’s brochure, he asked me that “I want you to make this, so can you make a draft to show me your idea?” Then, when I finished making the abridged version, he gave me further advice and support. Every time when we start the new project, my leader consults followers in order to get various ideas, before taking actions Communicative leadership (1) Directive leadership (7) Commanding leadership (1) Authoritarian leadership (7) My leader is funny and well-educated, but once it comes to work, he is a quite authoritarian leader He is quite authoritarian and has got a one-sided view and never listens to his followers’ opinions. But according to him, he wants us to “report, contact, and consult” with him more Protective (5) My leader has a strong sense of responsibility, and when he believes his followers are correct, he even goes against those in power If something goes wrong, my leader tries to negotiate with senior people for protecting us Covering up (1) Bargaining (5) My leader firstly asks me “This is the next task which I want you to do. The due date is this and that. Is it possible for you?” If I feel I can make it, I say “yes” but if not then say “No, it seems difficult.” In the latter case, we re-arrange the deadline or change the condition, and once we both agree on the new terms I start working on this task Laissez-faire (4) (continued)

Frequency counts

Inferred categories

3

Supportive

2 2

Punctual Egocentric

Units of analysis: phrase (frequency counts) For example, when we had to make a poster for some event, my leader completely left us alone, but once the layout came up and everything was nearly finished, he suddenly spoiled it by saying “It’s not good. Do it again!” Non-responsible (1) He tried to turn his failure/mistakes on his followers and blames us Supportive (2) Friendly (1) Punctual (2) Egocentric (1) Self-righteous (1)

“Seniority” (38 respondents; 66.6 percent), but there was less consistency for “Collectivism” with 23 (40.4 percent) suggesting this has occurred but 28 (49.1 percent) suggesting not. It seems that Japanese followers believe that their leaders are basing judgments more upon their abilities, competences ad performance rather than gender differences or age. Two questions were particularly prepared for observing respondents’ perceptions of protective and network leadership styles (identified from Phase 1). About 48 usable responses (84.2 percent) were obtained. About 47 respondents (97.9 percent) indicted that protective leadership and 41 respondents (85.4 percent) indicted that network leadership was important or very important. Thus, these concepts are also positively perceived here as significant elements of an ideal leadership style in Japan. Respondents were also asked to what extent they had social activities with their current leaders outside work (identified again in Phase 1). The results indicate that the average number of “after-five” activities with their leaders was 1.2 times a month. Similarly, for social activities at weekends, such as golf and dinner, the average frequency was only 0.3 times a month. A subsequent question then asked if respondents agreed that there would be benefits from spending time with their leaders, and although the frequency of “after-five” was low, 39 respondents (68.4 percent) reported that they believed this time was worthwhile. Most saw this as an opportunity to exchange ideas with leaders, which made their jobs easier. For “overtime-work” (identified as significant in Phase 1), results indicate that respondents worked overtime on average 3.9 days a week and that on these days they worked an average of 2.64 additional hours (49 respondents). Respondents seemed to accept this, with 36 (63.2 percent) answering that they did not expect their leaders to help with or reduce their overtime-work, indicating that, although they have an enormous amount of overtime-work, they believe they are responsible for completing the tasks they have been set. In the content analysis of the question concerning respondents’ leadership preferences identified above, units which could not be classified into the assumed categories based on Bass and Avolio’s model were classified into ten inferred categories:

Leadership preferences in Japan 519

Table III.

LODJ 28,6

520

liberal, trust, punctual, participative, network, supportive, directive, protective, after-five, and achievement-oriented leadership (see Table IV for counts and examples). Most of these, e.g. liberal (gender equality), network, protective, after-five (social activities outside work) were already identified in Phase 1, and their significance is enhanced by their further identification here. Furthermore, directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented are the styles which have already been conceptualized within House’s (1971) path-goal leadership theory. These ten leadership styles could not be found within Bass and Avolio’s (1997) model, and therefore have the potential to supplement or extend this in identifying Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles. Discussion Findings from both interviews (Phase 1) and questionnaires (Phase 2) are considered in response to the research question below. RQ1. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers regarding contemporary culture? The major finding from both phases regarding Japanese culture is recognition of cultural change by Japanese employees in terms of “Male chauvinism to gender equality,” “Collectivism to Individualism,” and “Seniority to Meritocracy.” These shifts from the traditional pattern of management systems are supported by other recent publications (Ornatowski, 1998; Shibata, 2000; Watanabe, 2003). It is notable, however, that these changes appear more prevalent in respondents’ workplaces than they are in their wider lives. The shift from male chauvinism to gender equality can be allied with equal opportunities legislation which came into force in 1985. Since, there has been a growing number of female employees in Japan (JIWE, 2003). Despite the positive response, two interviewees did suggest that equal opportunities tend to be offered only in certain industries. It has also been claimed that equal opportunities legislation requires improvement, since gender disparities have widened as a result of an increase in non-full time workers (Keizer, 2005). Furthermore, questionnaire comments claimed that female support systems such as “maternity leave” and “child-care leave” are insufficient. It should nevertheless be noted that the followers’ expectation for “gender equality” must also be high, as this an aspect of their preferred leadership styles identified in the interviews (Figure 1). As for the change from collectivism to individualism, the results of the questionnaires report that most respondents (59.6 percent) recognized this shift, and nearly half (49.1 percent) agreed that their leader no longer emphasized collectivism. Respondents who disagreed with this used the proverbs, “a tall tree catches much wind” and “the nail that sticks out will get-hammered” to illustrate the risks of standing out as an individual, yet the majority commented that, in contemporary business, a shift towards individualism, and a focus on skills and competences, has been welcomed. Change from seniority to meritocracy was supported by most respondents (70.2 percent), and two-thirds (66.7 percent) described their current leaders as not emphasizing seniority. Other publications (Fukuda, 1999; Keizer, 2005; Watanabe, 1997) have recognized such a switch. Two respondents claimed that the change to meritocracy is partly because Japanese people have increased their “labor mobility,”[3] and are more willing to switch jobs/companies in order to obtain higher responsibilities and status.

Inferred categories

Frequency

Examples

Liberal leadership

11

Leader who focuses on each of our competences regardless of gender and gives us equal chance Leader who can judge followers’ competence regardless of our age or background Leader who is fair, liberal, and employs meritocracy at work (Actually, leader in my current office is such a person, who always evaluates followers’ achievements in a liberal interpretation.) I have to say that conservative leaders are no longer effective in Japan Leader who emphasizes meritocracy rather than seniority I want my leader to do what he/she says that he/she will do Leader who proves what he/she says by actions rather than being just glib talker (leaders should be true to their words.) Leader who makes actions in consistent with what he/she says (I sometimes meet leaders who are just talking big, which is the worst.) Leader who has not only idea but also ability to make it real Leader who finishes everything on time Leader who shows up to all project meetings on time Leader who sets to work on schedule and also expects his/her followers to do same (so that we can all work smoothly and decrease our overtime-work as result) Leader who is punctual (In Japanese companies, we cannot decide anything without permission of those in power. So, if my leader is not punctual, it really wastes on my time to just wait for his signature.) Leader who can listen receptively to what others say Leader who makes it easy to exchange my ideas with him/her (not a one-way but an interactive two-way communication) Leader who consults with me for the way to carry out assignments Leader who asks his/her followers their suggestions before taking actions alone (I do not like the leader who is complacent.) Leader who has influence over those in power (especially those who can decide my promotion) Leader who reports my achievements to my co-workers and other leaders Leader who provides his/her network/connections for building followers’ careers Leader who is friendly and has good sense of humor Leader who can show us kind consideration (continued)

Trust leadership

9

Punctual leadership

8

Participative leadership

7

Network leadership

6

Supportive leadership

6

Leadership preferences in Japan 521

Table IV. Content analysis with inferred categories

LODJ 28,6

Inferred categories

Frequency

Directive leadership

5

Protective leadership

4

After-five leadership

3

Achievement-oriented leadership

2

522

Table IV.

Examples Leader who supports and advises me when I face problems Leader who gives me clear indications/orders I think that, compared with leader who does not do anything, leader who gives certain instructions can increase the followers’ performance Leader who tells me clearly what needs to be done and when it needs to be done Leader who takes care of us and protects us from those in power when we make any mistakes The leader who takes positive attitude towards protecting his/her followers at critical moment Leader who protects me from those in power at critical moment (For example, my current leader once tried to encourage me by saying “Don’t worry. Everything will be fine. Even in the worst case, I’m the one who will be fired, but not you.” I was impressed by this comment.) Leader who tries to socialize with his/her followers by organizing drinks Leader who tries to communicate with his/her followers at social meetings after work (so that he/she can know me better Leader who gives me good chance to sell my ideas to him/her on “after-five” occasions (It would be nice to be able to talk about my project to my leader over drinks Leader who gives me opportunities that are challenging Leader who allows me to challenge a lot of things

RQ2. What are the perceptions of Japanese followers towards Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model? Interview results suggest that Japanese followers prefer intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward, to idealized influence attributed or inspirational motivation. This was reinforced by the findings of the questionnaire (Table II). For intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration which belong to transformational leadership and are argued as amongst the most effective styles for influencing performance (Bass and Avolio, 1997), comments indicate that Japanese followers do prefer these leaders who spare time to be positively involved in followers’ tasks/problems. However, Japanese followers did not prefer idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation which are also part of transformational leadership and supposed to be effective in engaging higher levels of performance. Idealized influence attributed was not endorsed, because such leaders were seen as emphasizing their power and pride, and a collectivist approach. Inspirational motivation was not preferred, because people were skeptical of optimistic leaders, especially after the burst of the bubble economy.

On the other hand, contingent reward which belongs to transactional leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1997) was highly accepted here, as it was more endorsed than idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behaviours and inspirational motivation. An explanation can be found in the respondents’ comments which suggest a link between contingent reward and the recent change from seniority to meritocracy in Japanese management. Meritocracy, it seems, creates a suitable atmosphere for leaders who adopt contingent rewards and provide followers with assistance in exchange for efforts, and make it clear what they can expect to receive when goals are achieved. As for the remaining transactional leadership styles, management-by-exception active and management-by-exception passive, the former was endorsed slightly less than idealized influence attributed and the latter was supported by only two respondents. Management-by-exception active was not preferred since such leaders tend to focus upon the followers’ mistakes. Management-by-exception passive not endorsed because respondents felt such leaders cannot handle risk management. Finally, it must be emphasised that laissez-faire was not supported by any respondents in this study. Leaders who adopt laissez-faire were seen as avoiding any kind of responsibilities, and hence were not trustworthy. Overall, results suggest that the universality of Bass and Avoilio’s (1997) model can be questioned. Idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation, are not strongly endorsed, whereas contingent reward is highly supported by Japanese followers. Hence, the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range model as a framework can be questioned when it is applied to a Japanese context. RQ3. Are there aspects of leadership not covered by Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership model, which can be defined as culture-specific conceptualizations of Japanese leadership? Four leadership styles (participative, supportive, directive, and achievement-oriented) were identified (Table IV) which match “Path-goal leadership theory” (House, 1971). This finding suggests that, in a Japanese context, not only the new leadership approach of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) but also the situational approach of House (1971) are of value. Furthermore, interviews (Figure 1) and questionnaires (Table IV) identified network leadership style, protective leadership style, and gender equality as Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles, and liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective, and after-five leadership styles were all also identified as Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles through the questionnaire. The term “liberal” was introduced by a respondent describing his preferred leadership style. He referred to it as contrasting with Japanese principles of “conservatism”: The leader who is fair, liberal, and employs meritocracy at work (Actually, the leader in my current office is such a person, who always evaluates followers’ achievements in a liberal interpretation.) I have to say that the conservative leaders are no longer effective in Japan (Male, 28).

The cultural changes discussed above indicate a shift from traditional systems to more liberal approaches; hence it is perhaps not surprising that liberal leadership seems to be highly advocated by Japanese followers (being most recognized of the styles identified in Table IV).

Leadership preferences in Japan 523

LODJ 28,6

524

Trust leadership, whilst endorsed separately here, might actually underlie the effective operation of other styles. Shamir (1995) argues that the consistent honoring of transactional agreements builds trust which is a basis for creating transformational leadership, and it has been suggested that perceptions of contingent reward impact on the followers’ trust in leaders, so that transformational leader behavior is most credible when accompanied by contingent reward (Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Schriesheim et al., 2006). This relationship is supported by the importance placed on contingent reward here. Punctual leadership places importance on time. According to Ehie and Stough (1995, p. 20) and Stalk (1988, p. 41), effective utilization of time is a strategic issue and fundamental to effective business performance. For example, “time-based” strategies (such as just-in time) and effective time-management are often identified major sources of competitive advantage (Ehie and Stough, 1995; Goldman, 1992; Goldsbrough and Deane, 1988; Oliver et al., 1998; Schonberger, 1982; Sheridan, 1991; Stalk, 1988). The importance placed on time-management seems to have flowed into Japanese leadership through identification punctual leadership as a preferred leadership style (Table IV). Network and protective leadership were initially defined in the interviews (Figure 1) and the results of the questionnaire confirmed their significance (Figure 2). Moreover, unlike protective leadership, the concept of network leadership has already been researched by several researchers (House, 1996; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1983; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981). For instance, Kotter (1982) identifies network building as an effective management behavior; developing cooperative relations among those people required to accomplish goals. It appears followers expect leaders to provide such networks. Finally, the term after-five commonly used among Japanese people as expressing their personal time after work (Shinmura, 1998) originally derives from the traditional working-hour system (9 am to 5 pm), and although the questionnaire results revealed that lots of Japanese employees could not leave even after 5 pm due to their “overtime-work,” this phrase is still used as a metaphor for free time. In this respect, 39 questionnaire respondents (68.4 percent) felt time spent “after-five” with their leaders was beneficial through informal interaction that is not possible in the workplace. Having a drink with leaders and colleagues is particularly well-known in Japan, and there has even been a parodied phrase “Nommunication,” which combines the Japanese word “Nomu (drink)” and the English word “Communication.” “Nommunication” is common in Japan, its value is widely recognized (NHK, 2001; Rao et al., 1997) and is further supported here. Implications for practice The present study provides guidelines for leaders who work in a Japanese context. The findings indicate which leadership styles within Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model are particularly endorsed by Japanese followers. For example, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward are highly preferred (Figure 2; Table II), which indicates that leaders in Japan should stimulate followers to be innovative by approaching old situations in new ways, pay special attention to the needs of each individual follower, and reward followers for their achievements. It seems that these concepts can be matched with the cultural changes, i.e. from male chauvinism to gender equality, collectivism to individualism, and

seniority to meritocracy identified in this study. Thus, leaders should also understand that these changes are likely to impact upon leadership preferences in Japan, and they should seek to adjust their styles accordingly. Implications for research As noted above, compared with a number of publications examining Japanese management practices, those looking at leadership in Japan have been relatively sparse. This study indicates the importance of exploring those leadership dimensions particularly rooted in Japan. The fact that liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective, and after-five leadership styles were identified, which are not covered by American leadership theories, should motivate researchers to build new Japanese culture-specific leadership models. Moreover, this qualitative study provides findings contradictory to Bass and Avolio’s propositions regarding the ranking of leadership preferences within transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. These findings need to be viewed with caution however given the small, randomly generated sample employed here. It certainly indicates, however, the need to further test the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s model in a Japanese context with a larger sample and the MLQ Form 5X in future research. Finally, this research emphasizes the link between the new and traditional leadership approaches. Overall, the finding strongly suggest that, in a Japanese context, not only Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model but also House’s (1971) path-goal theory might be of value in exploring Japanese leadership dimensions. Summary The present study considered the suitability of Bass and Avolio’s (1997) full-range leadership model to a Japanese context. It identified that idealized influence attributed and inspirational motivation, were not endorsed by Japanese followers, whereas contingent reward was highly supported. These findings contradict Bass and Avolio’s (1997) proposition claiming that, regardless of cultures, preferences for all transformational leadership styles are higher than those for the transactional leadership styles. Beyond this existing framework, the study also identified a number of leadership dimensions that appear particularly rooted in Japan, and posits that leadership styles not covered by the full-range leadership model do exist. The results identified liberal, trust, punctual, network, protective, and after-five leadership styles as potential Japanese culture-specific preferred leadership styles. House’s (1971) path-goal theory’s leadership styles of directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented were also identified as significant in this regard. Furthermore, this study observed cultural changes from male chauvinism to gender equality, collectivism to individualism, and seniority to meritocracy, which seemed to influence leadership preferences in Japan. Overall, the present study has indicated that, based upon and extending Bass and Avolio’s and House’s leadership theories, a new Japanese leadership model which particularly suits Japanese followers’ leadership preferences, reflecting the contemporary Japanese culture, should be developed. Notes 1. Owing to time constraints, the authors could not put this question to one interviewee.

Leadership preferences in Japan 525

LODJ 28,6

526

2. According to Goldman (1992), the definition of the Japanese principles of “Amae” is the mutual dependency or interdependency at work. 3. Actual ratio of recent “labor mobility” in Japan stays relatively still. It was approximately 28 percent in 1996, 30 percent in 1999, and 32 percent in 2002 (Yoshida, 2004).

References Ajiferuke, M. and Boddewyn, J.J. (1970), “‘Culture’ and other explanatory variables in comparative management studies”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 153-63. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-95. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential Across a Full Range Leadership: Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62. Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997), “What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 845-64. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1996), “Is there universality in the full range model of leadership?”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 16, pp. 731-55. Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Sampler Set: Technical Report, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring Key for MLQ Form 5X-Short, 2nd ed., Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA. Blair, J.D. and Hunt, J.G. (1986), “Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more time: context-free and context-specific orientations in research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 147-66. Brain, K. and Lewis, D. (2004), “Exploring leadership preferences in multicultural workgroups: an Australian case study”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 263-78. Den Hartog, D.N. and Dickson, M.W. (2004), “Leadership and culture”, in Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 249-78. Dore, R. (1973), British Factory-Japanese Factory, Allen & Unwin, London. Ehie, I. and Stough, S. (1995), “Cycle time reduction through various business subcycles”, Industrial Management, Vol. 37, pp. 20-5. Ehrhart, M.G. and Klein, K.J. (2001), “‘Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: the influence of follower values and personality”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 153-79.

Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-Identity, and Work, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. French, H.W. (2000), “A postmodern plague ravages Japan’s workers”, New York Times, p. 4, February. Fukuda, T. (1999), “Nouryoku hyoukawa kigyou hattenno gennsenndearu” “(Performance-evaluation is the key for development of firms)”, Works, Vol. 33. Goldman, A. (1992), “Japanese managerial psychology: an analysis of cultural and organizational features of ‘total quality control’”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 17-21. Goldsbrough, P. and Deane, P. (1988), “Time is money”, Management Today, September, pp. 132-9. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, A. (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and The Netherlands, A Currency Book, New York, NY. Harris, H. (2001), “Content analysis of secondary data: a study of courage in managerial decision making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 191-208. Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “‘Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 695-702. Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (1989), “Japanese HR management practices: separating fact from fiction”, Personnel, Vol. 66, pp. 42-5. Hodgetts, R.M. and Luthans, F. (2002), International Management: Culture, Strategy, and Behavior, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. House, R.J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 321-8. House, R.J. (1996), “Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a performulated theory”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 323-52. 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, Vol. 78, pp. 891-902. Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990), “Champions of technological innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 317-41. Insch, G.S., Moore, J.E. and Murphy, L.D. (1997), “Content analysis in leadership research: examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 1-25. JIWE (2003), “The situation of working women (online)”, Japan Institute of Workers’ Evolution, available at: www.jiwe.or.jp/english/situation/situation2003.html (accessed January 3, 2006). Keizer, A.B. (2005), “The changing logic of Japanese employment practices: a firm-level analysis of four industries”, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. King, N. (1998), “Template analysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 118-34.

Leadership preferences in Japan 527

LODJ 28,6

528

King, N. (2006), “Template analysis (online)”, School of Human & Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, available at: www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/index.htm (accessed December 24, 2006). Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Manager, The Free Press, New York, NY. Kroll, J. (1993), “From capitalism without cost towards competitive capitalism”, Nikkei Weekly, Vol. 25, pp. 9-10. Littrell, R.F. and Valentin, L.N. (2005), “Preferred leadership behaviours: exploratory results from Romania, Germany, and the UK”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24, pp. 421-42. Meindl, J.R. (1995), “The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: a social construction approach”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 329-41. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and Around Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Modic, S.J. (1987), “Myths about Japanese management”, Industry Week, October 5, pp. 49-53. Morishima, M. (1995), “Embedding HRM in a social context”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 617-40. Murakami, Y. (1984), “The society as a pattern of civilisation”, Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 279-364. Nakae, C. (1970), Japanese Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. NHK (2001), “Shin nomyunikesyonn” “(The new communication over drink)”, Kurozuappu gendai: Sararimann 21seikini ikinokore (Today’s Close-up: Business-men, Survive in the 21st Century!), Nippon Hoso Kyokai, Tokyo, (TV broadcast 24 Jan 2001). Oliver, N., Delbridge, R. and Lowe, J. (1998), “Japanization on the shopfloor”, Employee Relations, Vol. 20, pp. 248-60. Ornatowski, G.R. (1998), “The end of Japanese style human resource management?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 73-84. Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Pettigrew, A.M. (1973), The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making, Tavistock, London. Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, Boston, MA. Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.K. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 897-933. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42. Popper, M. and Druyan, N. (2001), “Cultural prototypes? Or leaders behaviors? A study on workers’ perceptions of leadership in an electronics industry”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 549-58. Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), “The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 177-207. Rao, A., Hashimoto, K. and Rao, A. (1997), “Universal and culturally specific aspects of managerial influence: a study of Japanese managers”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 295-312.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 435-54. Sano, Y. (1993), “Changes and continued stability in Japanese HRM systems: choice in the share economy”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4, pp. 11-28. Schonberger, R. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques, Free Press, New York, NY. Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., Zhou, X. and DeChurch, L.A. (2006), “An investigation of path-goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 21-38. Shamir, B. (1995), “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 19-47. Sheridan, J.H. (1991), “Racing against time”, Industry Week, Vol. 240, pp. 22-8. Shibata, H. (2000), “Transformation of the wage and performance appraisal system in a Japanese firm”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, pp. 294-313. Shinmura, I. (1998), Koujien, 5th ed., Iwanami-syoten, Tokyo. Stalk, G. Jr (1988), “Time – the next source of competitive advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, pp. 41-51. Takahashi, Y. and Murakami, C. (2004), Servant Leadership Ron (The Servant Leadership Theory), Takarajima-sya, Tokyo. Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001), “The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and recommendations”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 31-52. Thomas, A.B. (2004), Research Skills for Management Studies, Routledge, London. Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, The Economist Press, London. Vecchio, R.P. and Boatwright, K.J. (2002), “Preferences for idealized styles of supervision”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 327-42. Watanabe, S. (1997), Posuto nihon keieigata: Gurobaru jinzai senryaku to ridashippu (Post Japanese Management System: The Strategy of Global Human Resource Management and Leadership), Nihon Roudo Kenkyu Kikou, Tokyo. Watanabe, T. (2003), “Recent trends in Japanese human resource management: the introduction of a system of individual and independent career choice”, Asian Business and Management, Vol. 2, pp. 111-41. Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Whitehill, J. and Arthur, M. (1964), “Cultural values and employee attitudes: United States and Japan”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48. Wonoroff, J. (1992), The Japanese Management Mystique, Probus Publishing, Chicago, IL. Yokochi-Bryce, N. (1989), “Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: transformational and transactional”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA. Yoshida, R. (2004), “Facts and figures surrounding Japans declining fertility rate”, Japan Times, Tokyo, June 27.

About the authors Aya Fukushige is a graduate of Bradford University School of Management Doctoral Program. Her research interests are in leadership, cross-cultural management and organizational

Leadership preferences in Japan 529

LODJ 28,6

development. Aya Fukushige is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] David P. Spicer is Senior Lecturer in organizational change and Associate Dean for MBA programmes at Bradford University School of Management. He holds a PhD from the University of Plymouth, and his research interests are in organizational learning, change and development. E-mail: [email protected]

530

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints