Post 7 Read: Chapter 8 Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015). Diversity and leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Discussion 7: Identify a scenario where you and someone else are approaching a problem or d

With Contributions From Roger Husbands and Beauregard Stubblefield-Tave

In identifying new paradigms and reframing existing theories toward a DLMOX paradigm for diversity leadership, we can look not only at the creation of new knowledge and research about an inclusive and culturally competent leadership framework as discussed in Chapter 3 but also to consider its application for leaders and organizations. Potential and existing leaders can become multiculturally or interculturally competent and culturally fluent regardless of their social identities; however, each group may have some different training needs as well as different lived experiences that they bring to their leadership. The application of principles in this book in promoting a DLMOX paradigm toward the development and training of diverse leaders is discussed in this chapter.

Mentorship: “In my mind and in my experience, mentorship for minority leaders is one of the most critical aspects for developing leadership muscles in the Western world.” (Black American female leader)

Leadership training: “Our training is intentional for minority leaders. It is about relationships and building a leadership pipeline. It is about mobilizing change and social responsibility. … It is not about filling a quota but is about blazing a trail.” (Alvin Alvarez, Founder of the Leader Development Institute of the Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests)

“Well, you know all homosexuals are going straight to Hell, right? It says so right in the Bible.” When a workshop participant made this comment, I was stunned into silence. After a pause, I replied, “Well, you know there are Christians who don’t read the Bible the same way you do. Would you like to share your thoughts with your colleagues?” The participant looked at me as if I’d asked “Would you like to take a trip to Mars?” We were at a break, and it was clear he did not feel safe sharing his views with his colleagues. Was it in response to my listing sexual orientation as a core identity issue rather than a sin (along with age, race/ethnicity, and sex/gender)? Was it that his colleagues had nodded in acknowledgment? I felt as though I had failed in my training objectives; however, it reminded me of two key points: (1) You can only take an individual, or a group, so far during any training session; (2) it would be difficult for others to be safe if he had shared his true feelings; and (3) he did feel safe enough with me to share his views when he knew I would disagree with them. This difficult dialogue is a type of experiential, “Aha!” learning, which is at the heart of cultural competence awareness training. (Beau Stubblefield-Tave, Cultural Imperative Trainer)

“Diversity leadership must become a core competency at all levels. … An effective leader promotes fairness and equity in the organization … and knows how to focus a broadly diverse group to use its members’ difference on ways to benefit the mission. … It is a learned skill. … Providing diversity leadership education is distinct from traditional forms of general diversity training. … This requires a fundamental shift in institutional thinking about diversity … and the personal and visible commitment of top leaders” (Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011). To have the United States support this position is profound within a culture known for its emphasis on conformity and command and control. It supports the implications of this book for developing leadership training that aligns with the principles of diversity. The underlying assumptions, goals and objectives, and training structure of a Diverse Leader-Member-Organizational Exchange Paradigm (DLMOX) proposed in this book are to train leaders to lead in a diverse and global environment. For this to happen, a focus on leadership development and leader self-awareness is first and foremost. Because leaders from minority, marginalized, and underrepresented groups have a different experience, targeted training may be useful for these groups. Because organization cultures vary in their heterogeneity and as to whether or not their missions incorporate diversity as a goal, training needs for organizations may also be different.

We see training as an application of the principles discussed in this book to enable organizations to promote an inclusive, culturally competent culture and environment for all individuals to have access to and be effective in positions of leadership irrespective of the social groups from which they come and for all leaders to incorporate diversity objectives in their exercise of leadership.

Using a diversity leadership or DLMOX paradigm can be applied in very practical ways to build culturally sensitive workplace climates, design new employee orientation programs, conduct programs in relocation training, improve global team effectiveness, and facilitate multinational merger implementation. More inclusive and diverse leadership not only is responsive to growing diversity in the workplace but also promotes innovation and flexibility among work teams.

Understanding issues about diversity, difference, and culture are useful in several ways. First, it can help leaders understand their own cultural biases and preferences as the first step toward understanding that other people in other cultures have different preferences. Second, different cultures have different worldviews, perceptions, and expectations about what they want from their leaders and what it means to be a good leader. Understanding these differences can help leaders adapt their style to be more effective across different cultural settings or to manage the discrepancies that hinder them from being effective. Third, understanding different cultural orientation dimensions can promote more effective communication among diverse leaders across cultural and geographic boundaries. By understanding cultural differences, leaders can become more empathic and accurate in their communication with others.

Global leadership often focuses on cross-cultural relationships where the acknowledgment of difference between equal partners is presumed—that is, between countries, corporations, and businesses. Here, the differences between leaders based on their social identities are explicit. The term global leadership is often used when multinational companies send their managers to another country to manage its indigenous workforce. This use and perception of leadership is quite ethnocentric with the term indigenous reserved for the less privileged and “underdeveloped” countries to which managers 

With Contributions From Roger Husbands and Beauregard Stubblefield-Tave

“There had been a heavy snowstorm. I was cold getting to work. As my women colleagues huddled together to discuss the weather, I announced that I was going to wear pants in the next day. There was awe and shock that I would violate the skirt dress code and social norm for women in the 1970s where the leadership was all men. When I arrived in pants the next day, all the women stood around observing in silence, expecting me to be disciplined or sent home. Well, nothing happened! This small act of defiance led the women to begin to wear pants to work, at their choice, from that day on within the organization.” (Jean Lau Chin)

In identifying new paradigms and reframing existing theories toward a DLMOX paradigm for diversity leadership, the creation of new knowledge and research about an inclusive and culturally competent leadership framework as discussed in Chapter 3 can also be applied toward training organizations to be culturally competent. This assumes organizational change as well as the developing and transforming of organizational cultures to become diverse and multiculturally competent. This generally requires buy-in at the top by an organization’s leaders and the creation of an organization’s climate receptive to the goal of diversity in order to be successful.

Culturally competent leadership training and development requires a shift in one’s ethnocentric perspective; one that begins with an awareness of cultural differences but is not judgmental. Moodian (2009) describes this as an envisioning process for both leaders and organizations and identifies a paradigm for how organizations address diversity. Several paradigms currently in use are problematic. ADiscrimination and Fairness paradigm emphasizes recruitment, retention, advancement, and mentoring of ethnic minority staff toward compliance with Affirmation Action goals. It is problematic because its focus is on achieving number targets and does not consider what ethnic minority members bring to the organization. The Access and Legitimacy paradigm has, as its goal, matching organizational demographics to those of constituent groups. This generally involves the strategy of hiring ethnic minority staff to target the constituent group as a market niche. It is problematic because it can be exploitive such as when cigarette companies began targeting ethnic communities, when their markets in White communities began to shrink. The Learning and Effectiveness paradigm values the personal and cultural experiences of their members and what they bring to the core institutional culture. It does not necessarily promote changes to the core business of the organizational culture.

Moodian (2009) proposes an Envisioning and Transcending paradigm, which commits to the envisioning process of diversity as a potential strength, a culturally inclusive climate, equity, and cultural accommodation as organizational goals. There are four levels of organizational engagement. These include (1) stages of compliance (doing something because you have to), (2) normalization (accepting it as normal), (3) utilization (using it positively in the workplace), and (4) maximization (harnessing the value that it brings).

Applying an organization to a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is commonly used to identify and establish a plan with goals, objectives, and action steps. Using Moodian’s Envisioning and Transcending paradigm as a framework, organizations can assess the different levels or different developmental stages it is at with regard to diversity. Additionally, an organization can assess its composition, as defined in Chapter 6, as to its degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity or its mission as to whom its business is targeted or reaches.

In addition to training diverse leaders or training leaders to be more diverse, it is also important to address as a goal, managing diversity as organizational change. It means training for organizational change—to promote a diverse multicultural and global environment with broad social goals aligned with valuing diversity as good for business and promoting a harmonious diverse and global society. It means having a diverse workforce, diverse clientele and business. It means an awareness of the bias and ethnocentrism that shape attitudes and create barriers to doing business, offering quality products and services, or marginalize and disadvantage outgroups and minority groups based on dimensions of diversity.

Managing organizational diversity starts with developing an organization’s strategic planning to be inclusive of diversity and directed toward organizational and systemic change. It presumes a commitment to goals of diversity leadership. It makes the business case for training to move leaders and members toward a goal where diversity means good business; it brings in customers, expands the customer base, promotes a climate where all voices are included, and strives toward a workforce composition that is diverse and delivers its products or services in a culturally competent manner. The senior author has defined this to mean addressing the Three Cs of Diversity: recruiting and retaining a diverse Composition of the workforce and clientele, developing the Core of business products and services to be delivered in a culturally competent manner, and promoting a welcoming and inclusive workplace Climate within the organization.

Moodian (2009) views contemporary leadership and leadership success as attainable through intercultural competence and stresses the importance of moving away from ethnocentric leadership philosophies given the growing dominance of diverse workforces and greater racial/ethnic heterogeneity of populations in countries throughout the world today. He suggests a strategic planning process or business plan that is inclusive of diversity and offers seven steps toward managing diversity for organizational change. “The business case is about capturing talent, understanding markets, utilizing diverse perspectives for innovation, knowing how and how not to pitch products, and ultimately, how to generate employee commitment” (Moodian, 2009, p. 39). The seven steps include the following:

1. Generating Executive Commitment—Nothing happens in an organization without buy-in from the top. Diversity needs to be a goal embraced by leaders within an organization and starts with a visioning process.

2. Assessment—This process helps the organization understand its current state regarding diversity. This essentially means doing a SWOT analysis of the Three Cs; this might include assessing composition of the workforce and its 

1. Diversity Council—The establishment of such councils provides a formal mechanism within the organization that serves the purpose of getting feedback to and from employees and explaining diversity and any initiatives that are created to employees.

2. Systems Change—The executive leadership needs to align organizational systems and operational practices with diversity goals. These include pay equity reviews, revamping promotional processes to ensure fairness and equal access, setting performance objectives for hiring, establishing affinity groups or mentoring for employees, or establishing performance objectives for managers and employees in their performance reviews.

3. Training—This should NOT be designed to change an organization. Training is effectively and appropriately used to create awareness and help people develop knowledge and skills, which could result in behavior change. Training is too often used as an isolated tool to promote organizational change with limited or even negative results. At best, using training in this way is like using a screwdriver to drive a nail.

4. Measurement and Evaluation—“What gets measured gets done” is a common phrase supporting the importance of measuring the effects of change processes and evaluating the results of targets and goals that are; this includes both process and outcomes of the strategic plan.

5. Integration—Creating a feedback mechanism for continuous improvement is always important to ensure that short-term changes have long-term impact.

A strategic planning process is different from diversity training as a tool for organizational change. It is when an organization or its leaders attempt to envision the future, conduct a SWOT analysis, and develop a plan for organizational success and direction that it can have lasting impact on promoting a diverse and global workplace culture. Organizational change will flow from its policies, procedures, and strategies.

• Managing diversity as part of organizational change is best done when systems audit for organizational diversity are in place to measure outcomes. This includes measures for the Composition of the workforce, Core products of the business, and Climate of the organization. A systems audit for organizations on its level of diversity might include whether or not the organization does the following:

• Promote access for all populations

• Is relevant for today’s leadership contexts

• Empowers the clients and workforce

• Is applicable to solving contemporary problems

• Establishes diverse work group teams

• Addresses the dynamics of organizational composition based on heterogeneity of its workforce and organizational culture

A set of criteria to evaluate the inputs (plan and commitment) and outputs (activities, services, and products) with feedback mechanisms to answer the core question of: How do you know when the organization is doing well? What data are available to indicate how to stop, adjust, or improve less effective actions? On screening and appraisal of leaders, what are the criteria for identifying potential leaders? Do they unintentionally exclude some groups based on their social identities that are immaterial to their effectiveness as leaders? Do criteria for performance appraisals lead to bias because of unconscious beliefs and values about leader behaviors? How is it objectively measured?

Measuring organizational cultural competence has proven to be very challenging. As discussed in Chapter 2 and 8, cultural competence is represented by the acceptance and respect for differences, continuing self-assessment regarding culture, careful attention to the dynamics of differences, continuous expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, and a variety of adaptations to belief systems, policies, and practices. However, organizational cultural competence needs to be evaluated at the same level as other organizational indicators such as measuring profitability, market share, and customer satisfaction.

Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Isaacs (1989) first coined the term cultural competence as part of six developmental levels along a continuum from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency to describe where a mental health service delivery system might be situated in its responsiveness to the culture of its patients. Over the years, cultural competence developed its own language, values, principles, norms, and expected behaviors; by its own definition, it became a culture and a movement.

While cultural competence has been used extensively in health and mental health systems of care, it has only recently come into the leadership literature as a way to promote diversity within corporations and organizations. Although it has become well accepted that focusing on the cultural identities of patients and staff is essential to deliver quality culturally competent care for all patients, the cultural competence movement was challenged from the beginning to develop definitions and standards for organizations that could be more specific than “I know it when I see it.” The development of the measurement of organizational cultural competence saw three milestones:

1. Cross’s Cultural Competency Continuum—is a framework of the developmental process of cultural competence (Cross et al., 1989) that was a major contribution to understanding how cultural competence could develop within an organization or in individuals. The six stages are identified on Table 9.1. However, by defining these developmental stages based on values, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors, the continuum is more a description of “cultural good” than a standard for measurement. This continuum contains a cultural bias with categories such as “destructiveness” or “blindness” that tend to demonize the early stages of the development of cultural competence. Consequently, it cannot provide the basis against which the cultural competence of disparate organizations can be measured. Since the early stage categories, as defined by Cross, can also exist in a culturally competent organization, a problem arises when one culture is measured with another. Values, beliefs, and feelings of the continuum are also the primary elements of culture. As Albert Einstein (n.d.) demonstrated, “problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” 

   Table 9.1 Cross-Cultural Competence Continuum
   Stage	Definition
   Proficiency	Hold culture in high esteem and value positive role of culture in health and well-being
   Competency	Accept and respect differences. Continuously self-assess and expand cultural knowledge resources
   Pre-competency	Desire to deliver high quality services and committed to civil rights. May feel one change in system is adequate
   Blindness	Provide services with philosophy of no bias. Believe if system works that all people will be served with equal effectiveness
   Incapacity	Make biased decisions with clients from other cultures and perpetuate stereotypes
   Destructiveness	Devalue cultures and individuals within them through attitudes, policies, practices

2. Adapted from Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Center.

3. Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards—Based on Cross’s continuum, 14 federal standards/norms were developed to improve healthcare organizations’ ability to deliver “effective, understandable and respectful” care to all patients/consumers (U.S. DHHS, 2001). It was a contribution to 

“There is a difference. When people ask, isn’t what you are saying true of all human beings? [I say No! A paradigm for Diversity Leadership is about] the inattention to social status and negative attributions made about differences in social identities. It is about dominant and subordinate groups, majority and minority status, having privilege or not, being in the in-group or out-group, and all that shape the different [lived] experiences of leaders. … It is also about training potential leaders to effect change in their institutions and communities.” (Ethnic minority leader about targeted training for ethnic minority leaders)

In reviewing the theories and literature on leadership, the need for a more global and diverse model of leadership is evident. Today, the face of diversity is changing. Diversity in the 1960s meant a seat at the table; it meant dealing with underrepresented ethnic minorities of Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native American Indian groups in the United States. Today, there are many more racial/ethnic groups, including Arabic and Middle Eastern countries and many more dimensions of cultural diversity, including religion, disability, sexual orientation, age, and social class. Our contexts are also changing. World leadership is no longer the Big Four (consisting of the allied powers of the United States, Britain, Italy, and France after WWI). China, once a third world country, now vies as a new world power. Our vision for the future must link to the past. What does diversity mean today? Whereas emphasis in the 20th century was on underrepresentation, on people of color as minorities, and on the adverse consequences of racism, we now grapple with diversity in a global village. A global perspective of population diversity, not only within the United States but also in many countries throughout the world, coupled with the vast intercultural exchange through technology and the Internet changes how we must now view diversity.

Whereas leadership theory for the 21st century is still in its nascent stages, conducting grounded theory research and collecting qualitative data as methods of inquiry are important to build a foundation of knowledge to minimize inherent bias from ethnocentric views in current theories of leadership. We see a paradigm for diversity leadership as both evolving and dynamic. Crosscutting themes emerging in this book are only the beginning. Further research is needed to confirm and expand the important questions about what we now know about diversity and leadership.

However, several things are clear. Single dimensions of leadership are no longer viable to capture the complex, multiple, and intersecting dimensions influencing how leadership is exercised among diverse leaders in a culturally diverse and global society. Any paradigm must evolve continuously as societal trends and new contexts shape how leadership is exercised and raise new challenges for contemporary leaders. A paradigm for diversity leadership must be inclusive of all voices and of varying leadership styles that intersect with the social identities and cultural value orientations across diverse groups. We should not resort to the dichotomous views (e.g., of task vs. relationship oriented styles) to reflect the styles of specific groups. Rather, we need to view each dimension as existing along a continuum in all groups and leaders; it is a matter of relative emphasis as to which are more salient consistent with individual and cultural values and orientations across varying contexts. Chapters 8 and 9 on Applications summarize some of the multiple cultural dimensions that contribute to leadership effectiveness.

In emphasizing culture and leadership, we return to Northouse’s (2004, p. 3) definition of leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.” In addition to the notion of influence, we add that leadership is all about relationships, a process that will vary across cultural contexts. For example, respect and trust is often viewed as important to relationships but may mean different things in different cultures. In Japan, for example, the concept of enrio governs behavior in the workplace such that one may not accept promotion if you know the person who you will replace; rather than bring dishonor onto that person, you might quit in disgrace. While such a notion may be “foreign” to Western thinking, the relationship exists within the context of respect and honor; such cultural values often influence leadership behaviors. A collective orientation context, where the welfare of the group is foremost is common among Eastern countries, stands in contrast to an individualistic orientation, common among Western countries where the emphasis is on individual achievement. These examples, also discussed throughout the book, underscore the need to shift from current cultural dimensions that underlie many contemporary leadership models today to allow for the development of models that are more inclusive of or start from the premises of other cultural orientations—to be less ethnocentric.

Common among leadership models today is the assumption that there is a presumed ideal leader prototype. From a diversity leadership perspective, we need to expand the range of leader prototypes beyond those to which we unconsciously subscribe based on cultural orientation values; we need to go beyond the social and cultural constraints that limit our leadership. We offer a process to change the “traditional” prototype to one that is diverse. This means an awareness of how stereotypic images may bias judgments against those who do not look or behave in a “leaderful” manner when, in fact, they are behaving in accordance with their social roles. We need to move from the development of fixed leadership profiles toward ones that recognize leader competencies and adaptability to be responsive to cultural contexts within both society and organizations. Our tendency to contrast Eastern versus Western styles or industrialized versus underdeveloped third world countries polarizes our thoughts and opinions about leadership.

A 21st century conceptualization of leadership means a noncolonial, nonindustrial notion of leadership that does not equate dominance and power of the leader with a conqueror mentality. An emphasis on context is central to a contemporary diversity leadership paradigm. Increased use of technology and social media and instant communication via the Internet is causing rapid change and innovation. Twenty-first century leadership will shift from measuring outcomes based not on military power and the conqueror mentality but on economic power and interdependence associated with the production of services and the ability to manage continuous change in a digital age. The diversity of leader teams can facilitate creativity and innovation as it brings in diverse perspectives and urges flexibility. Social groups experiencing a history of oppression are more likely to focus on shared power and empowerment. However, instead of eschewing the acknowledgement of power as was done in the 20th century, it is distinguishing bad, destructive, and abusive use of power from good, creative, and benevolent use of power. Hence, we include these parameters within a Diverse Leader-Member-Organization Exchange Paradigm (DLMOX).

Leadership theories and the popular media have put forth leadership prototypes that are viewed as universal and ideal, when in fact, they reflect both an ethnocentric, culturally specific, and value-laden prototype of a White, middle class, heterosexual Eurocentric male. It is time to offer different, more diverse, and inclusive leader prototypes. How do we develop a prototype that challenges the narrow ones that exist? How do we develop ones that are inclusive, dynamic, and flexible and representative of unique, culturally diverse lifeways and thoughtways?

Bass’s Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research revised edition first mentioned the importance of culture and ethnicity in leadership (Bass, 1990) with Chapter 32 on women and leadership and Chapters 33 and 34 on leadership characteristics among Blacks, Hispanics, other ethnic minorities, and on cross-cultural leadership styles. Although the chapters were based on little empirical evidence, the chapters forged a new direction for research in leadership that is active and vital in the 21st century.

Several seminal culturally driven leadership studies since 1981 helped shape our understanding of cultural variations in management and leadership styles. Peter Dorfman and Jon Howell (1988) examined culturally contingent leadership patterns, preferences, and styles in non-Western countries. Using Gert Hofstede’s four culture dimensions (i.e., individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance), the researchers found that paternalism was a major influence on one’s leadership style. Respondents tended to prefer egalitarian styles when the power distance was low (i.e., the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally). When power distance was high, leadership styles were more authoritative and directive.

Peter Dorfman and his colleagues published the results of an extensive and ambitious cross-national study of leadership styles and characteristics (Dorfman et al., 1997) with the intent of finding a synthetic universal or etic-based prototype drawn from cross-cultural samples in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and the United States. While they did not find a universal characteristic that transcended cultural lifeways and thoughts, they found partial support for leaders’ supportiveness, contingent reward, and charismatic leadership. In the U.S. sample, they found support for a form of contingent punishment style, which was viewed as undesirable in the other countries speaking to contrasting styles that have been consistent between Eastern and Western countries.

Colin Silverthorne (2001) also found support for a relationship between culture and leadership styles. He found variations in neuroticism and extroversion among participants from the United States, Taiwan, and Thailand that could be attributed to their respective collective and individualistic orientations. An extensive review of theory and methodology on the emerging interests in culture and leadership by Dickson, Den Hartog, and Michelson (2003) led to the cautionary note that one should not ignore significant [within-group and between-group differences] within a country or culture. They conclude that “technological advances, larger multicultural samples, clarification of cultural dimensions, and better measurement of cognitive processes across cultures will allow us to better understand the role societal culture plays in the enactment and interpretation of leadership” (p. 761).

As indicated throughout this book, leadership concepts are culturally endorsed; the GLOBE studies (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) supported how cultural orientation values influence leadership and demonstrated cultural variation in leadership profiles across 62 countries. Ethnographic data from the late 1800s, for example, clearly demonstrate consideration variation in leadership styles from one culturally diverse group to another. These data show how leadership styles are often tradition bound, showing little variation over time within many culturally diverse communities. However, in communities where colonization and immigration generated contact with other different culturally diverse groups, leadership styles of the indigenous population often had to change to accommodate and even challenge the styles brought in by outsiders.

In many of the studies, researchers hoped to find universal leadership patterns that transcended unique culturally diverse lifeways and thoughts of specific groups. For example, studies by Gertsner and Day (1994), House, Wright, and Aditya (1997), Hanges and Dixon (2004), House et al. (1999), and Brodbeck et al. (2000) anticipated finding this seemingly elusive universal pattern. However, several research methodological and procedural concerns about the cultural equivalence of meanings of the constructs continue to be the most problematic (Trimble & Vaughn, 2013). Dimensions are difficult to measure and observe in equivalent semantic terms and to demonstrate ethnocultural comparability.

Brodbeck et al. (2000) concluded that leadership concepts differ as a function of cultural differences in Europe and identified cultural variation of leadership prototypes. With a sample size of 6,052 representing 22 European countries using a 112-item questionnaire, the study developed and validated a set of dimensions representing core differences in leadership prototypes. Among many compelling findings and aspects of the study, the research team attempted to identify a leadership prototype of a greater magnitude than some of the attempts that had been undertaken before (Gertsner & Day, 1994; Kenney, Blasovich, & Shaver, 1994).

If leadership theorists and researchers truly acknowledge that culture matters, then different culturally styled leadership approaches or prototypes deserve more serious scholarly attention. While these early efforts were useful in identifying cultural variation across countries, how do we take this down to an individual level to identify a set of leadership dimensions that can be used to identify leadership styles and profiles used by diverse leaders