We asked practicing managers to rank 16 typical leadership competencies according to their importance for success, and we examined cultural differences in the outcomes. Presentation held at EAWOP conference, May 2011, Maastricht.

1. A Seven-Country Study of the Importance
of Leadership Competencies for Success
in Organizations
Regina Eckert, Center for Creative Leadership
William A. Gentry, Center for Creative Leadership
Vijayan Munusamy, The Conference Board, Singapore
Sarah A. Stawiski, Center for Creative Leadership
Jacob Martin, University of Georgia
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

2. The industry of leadership development
Leadership Development is the biggest budget in organizational T&D: 22% in
2010 (Bersin & Associates, 2011). It is seen as strategically important:
“Leadership—specifically leadership development—is vital to succession
planning. That’s why I’m working with boards and CEOs to craft a more
rigorous process and put it into action.” (A.G. Lafley)
Average spending per leader is app. 1300 € p.a. (Lamoureux & O’Leonard,
2009)  effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) has a huge financial impact.
Of course, the personal impact is also important….
2
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 2

3. What needs to be developed in leadership development
The search for the “holy grail”
- Leaders need to perform certain managerial roles and activities (Dierdorff,
Rubin & Morgeson, 2009
- Leaders need to meet certain skill requirements (Mumford, Campion &
Morgeson, 2007)
- Leaders must display task and relationship behaviors (Judge, Piccolo &
Ilies, 2004)
- Leaders must be good team leaders (Morgeson, DeRue & Karam, 2010)
In sum, leadership effectiveness is manifold and context-dependent
In practice, organizations rely on a corporate competency framework to
develop competencies and a certain “brand” of leadership
 But what do leaders themselves say? Their voices aren’t often heard
3
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 3

4. What leaders around the world need
Leadership competencies are influenced by many contextual factors at individual,
team & organizational level (Agut, Grau & Peiro, 2003; Hopkins & Bilimoria, 2008);
 So how about cultural influences?
Culture influences relationship between leadership behaviors and leadership
outcomes (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Globe III, in preparation)
Culture as a moderator (Spreitzer, Perttuyla & Xin, 2003; Walumbwa & Lawler,
2003; GLOBE I and II) between leadership behavior , leadership style, and
outcomes
But: Culture not included in studies about leadership competencies
 Does culture impact what kinds of competencies are most effective for
organizational success?
4
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 4

5. Why there should be cultural differences
Cultural divergence perspective (Webber, 1969):
National culture drives formation of values, beliefs and practices.
Cultures relatively stable over time (House & Aditya, 1997), even geographic
proximity and trade ties cannot alleviate them (Smith, 1997).
Evidence for this: The GLOBE project
Distinct cultural values & practices in 62 cultures (despite industry
homogeneity);
Implicit leadership theories were largely culturally endorsed (14% - 35% of
ILT’s explained by cultural values).
5
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 5

6. Why there shouldn’t be cultural differences
Cultural Convergence perspective (Webber, 1969): Globalization also leads to
assimilation of cultural values and norms, towards a universal business
culture. Corporate cultures span across national cultures (Chatman & Jehn,
1994; Ralson, Holt, Terpstra & Yu, 1997); Institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio
& Powell, 1983) suggests that organizations become similar to each other.
Evidence for this:
Modernization, globalization and rapid economic growth have resulted in
convergence of personality (Wong, Shaw, & Ng, 2010), values (Munusamy,
Valdez, Lo, Budde, Suarez, & Doktor, 2009), ethical attitudes (Bailey & Spicer,
2007), human resource management (HRM) practices (Carr & Pudelko, 2006;
Vanhala, Kaarelson, & Alas, 2006), and corporate governance (Payne, 2006)
6
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 6

7. Method
Seven “highly diverse” countries
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 7

8. Method
Participants:
• 763 practicing managers that participated in a leadership development
program between January 2007 and October 2009
Comparable samples & sample sizes:
• China (N = 99); Egypt (N = 106); India (N = 100); Singapore (N = 112);
Spain (N = 94), UK (N = 106), US (N = 146)
Material & Procedure:
• Benchmarks questionnaire of 16 leadership competencies; completed
before training program;
• Participants asked to pick 8 (out of 16) that they regarded as most
important for success in their organization.
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 8

9. Results: Frequency-based rank order
China/ Singa-
Leadership Competency Egypt India Spain UK US
HK pore
Leading Employees 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Resourcefulness 3 2 1 1 6 2 1
Change Management 2 5 4 6 3 3 3
Decisiveness 6 3 3 3 2 5 4
Participative Management 4 4 5 5 4 5 7
Building and Mending Relationships 5 6 7 4 5 4 7
Doing Whatever it Takes 9 8 6 7 10 7 5
Straightforwardness and Composure 7 10 8 8 7 7 6
Self-Awareness 8 7 10 11 7 9 10
Being a Quick Study 12 9 9 9 11 10 9
Balancing Personal Life and Work 10 11 12 9 9 13 11
Career Management 10 11 14 13 12 16 12
Compassion and Sensitivity 13 16 11 12 15 15 13
χ2 (16, 486) =
Differences Matter 45.89; p< .001; φ = .31 (medium)
15 15 13 14 13 11 16
Confronting Problem Employees 14 13 15 16 16 11 15
Putting People at Ease 16 14 16 15 13 14 13
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 9

10. Results: Overall country differences
Mean
Leadership Competency (SD) χ2 Φ
ranking
Leading Employees 1.14 (0.38) 8.40
Resourcefulness 2.29 (1.80) 22.81*** .173
Change Management 3.71 (1.38) 25.42*** .183
Decisiveness 3.71 (1.38) 27.64*** .190
Participative Management 4.86 (1.07) 10.47
Building and Mending Relationships 5.43 (1.27) 12.69* .129
Doing Whatever it Takes 7.43 (1.72) 43.03*** .237
Straightforwardness and Composure 7.57 (1.27) 8.89
Self-Awareness 8.86 (1.57) 15.32* .142
Being a Quick Study 9.86 (1.21) 15.13* .141
Balancing Personal Life and Work 10.71 (1.50) 14.55* .138
Career Management 12.57 (1.99) 22.72** .173
Compassion and Sensitivity 13.57 (1.81) 30.76*** .201
Differences Matter 13.86 (1.68) 5.17
χ2 (16, 486) = 45.89; p< .001; φ 14.29 (medium)
Confronting Problem Employees
= .31 (1.80) 25.55*** .183
Putting People at Ease 14.43 (1.27) 3.16
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 10

11. Results: Pairwise comparisons
231 pairwise comparisons of countries on the 11 overall significant competencies
(Bonferroni correction)
 Only 24 comparisons significant:
- Resourcefulness (US > Egypt)
- Change Management (Spain > Singapore; Spain > Egypt)
- Decisiveness (Spain > China, Egypt, US, UK; India > China)
- Doing whatever it takes (India, US > China; India, US, Singapore, UK > Spain)
- Being a quick study (Egypt > Spain)
- Career Management (China, Egypt > UK)
- Compassion & Sensitivity (China, Singapore, India > Spain)
- Confronting Problem Employees (China, Singapore, India > Spain)
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 11

12. Discussion & Implications
All of the 16 competencies were chosen by at least 5% of participants
Effect sizes of overall differences are small – medium
High agreement across cultures on the most important competencies
Lower agreement on (average) less important competencies
Implications:
1. Evidence supports cultural convergence rather than divergence
 necessary contents of leadership development programs largely translate
across countries
2. People leadership seen as the key to success
 still important to develop this rather “unfancy” leadership competence;
corporate competency models should certainly keep this ingredient
3. Leading change & resourcefulness often selected as important
 reflects the need to manage in a VUCA world (Stiehm, 2002); tendency towards
mainstreaming these competencies into corporate competency models is useful
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 12

13. Thank you!
2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 13

14. 2011 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 14