PERSONALquarterly 03 / 24 38 NEUE FORSCHUNG_FÜHRUNG Organizations’ problems stemming from poor leadership practice, such as low employee psychological well-being limiting their productivity, became increasingly evident in recent years, emphasizing the relevance of good leadership practice for organizational success and survival. There is a broad consensus that servant leadership can have a positive impact on both individual’s emotional state and organizational outcomes. Indeed, the proven influence of servant leadership on the individual’s self-efficacy, motivation, trust and identification makes it a valuable approach for improving workers’ well-being as well as related organizational results such as performance, work engagement, and knowledge sharing (Langhof/Guldenberg, 2020). A cross-cultural perspective on servant leadership Even though the idea of "serving people" is catching practitioners’ attention worldwide, which exact behaviours are perceived as "servant", and what exactly is expected from servant leaders, differs in different national cultures. In the following, we report on a study where we analysed how CEOs in Italy versus Japan, who are all portrayed as successful and servant leaders, tailored the servant approach of their leadership to the very specific cultural context. What servant leadership is: current understanding and core characteristics Recent behavioural models of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck/Nuijten, 2011; Mittal/Dorfman, 2012) describe it through three main aspects: Servant leaders (1) experience a genuine tension towards individual development and empowerment, (2) display humility, authenticity, and acceptance of others, and (3) are able to provide direction towards working for the good of the whole. The combination of a leader’s skills and a servant’s qualities blurs hierarchy among the leader and the followers. Servant leaders present themselves as primus inter pares, without relying on positional power for authority or legitimacy. They are accepted and recognized as leaders due to their selfless, other-oriented disposition. Servant leaders‘ most important concern is to build a group of people who, under the influence of the organisation, can grow Servant leadership in different cultures: a comparison of Italian and Japanese CEOs Dott.ssa Mag. Elena Bellenghi (Free University of Bolzano) & Prof. Dr. Sylvia Hubner-Benz (Universität Paderborn) as individuals as well as professionals – eventually becoming servants themselves. Despite similarities to transformational, ethical, and authentic leadership, only servant leadership holistically combines a flexible and contingent follower-centric approach with moral integrity – as key to executive power’s preservation (Mittal/Dorfman, 2012) – and an overarching concern towards present and future stakeholders (Eva et al., 2019). The role of culture: differentiating Italy and Japan According to a rich body of literature that investigates influences of national cultures on leadership behaviours and leadership outcomes, leadership can benefit when it considers culture. Embracing the dynamics and complexity of culture, "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others" (Hofstede, 2011), leaders can develop more effective strategies of communication and interaction. To describe, compare and interpret servant leadership’s characteristics in relation to cultural contexts, we draw on Hofstede’s culture theory. We found the following four dimensions to be particularly prominent in influencing Italian and Japanese leaders’ behaviours: P ower distance represents how society deals with inequalities, specifically how the weakest members assume and accept unequal distribution of power. Japan is among the high-power distant cultures (with the lowest score among those), while Italy is among the low-power distant cultures (with the highest score among those). U ncertainty avoidance represents how society deals with the unknown. In countries with high (Italy) or very high (Japan) uncertainty avoidance scores, people are socialized to beat the future and tend to dislike diversity in behaviours and opinions. It is the unpredictability and not the risk itself – if identifiable – that triggers those societies: security, formalization and rules are appreciated. I ndividualism versus collectivism represents how the self is placed in relationships with others. In individualistic societies, like Italy, human bonds are not so tight and there is the tendency to prioritize self-interest. In collectivistic societies, like Japan, human relationships are extensive and strong:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjc4MQ==