41 03 / 24 PERSONALquarterly This perspective contained individual personal values (selflessness, courage, empathy, kindness, and freedom) but also Japanese ideals (Confucian’s virtues). Japanese empowerment: Cultivation of individual development and trust in others. Pursuing the belief that relationships are indispensable in achieving humanity, Japanese servant leaders tried to create conditions for fruitful interactions when growing others. They not only supported professional and purposeful development for their followers, but also demonstrated their ultimate intention of cultivating mutual obligations, counting on others as others count on them, finally exhorting others to embody their values, including the development towards their vision and strengthening the heritage of the firm. "I see my mission as nurturing such individuals by passing on the legacy of Toyota’s skills and philosophy." – A. Toyoda "People need a purpose. They want to feel they‘re contributing to society. A CEO also needs to satisfy that need, because a company can‘t achieve results without the support and engagement of its employees." – T. Niinami Additionally, through listening ("reading the air") and granting people trust by not being on their back all the time ("being like air"), they communicated attentiveness to others’ needs and simultaneously their authentic belief in others’ value. "I understand (…) a team (…) does not need a leader. At the company my presence is like air. People don’t know if I’m there or not. Actually, this is how I want it to be. (…) If a crisis happens, I will step up and address it, but in ordinary times, the ideal is for me to be like air. My presence is such that when I’m there not much is thought of it, but if I went away that would be problematic." – A. Toyoda Japanese humility: Self-cultivation and courage, focused on harmony. Humility, in the Japanese leaders’ perspective, was associated with learning. This might be the reason why the Japanese servant leaders, when self-evaluating, lowered themselves down. Their emphasis on being pares and authentic made them appear more equal to others, sharing others’ limits, not hiding vulnerability. When they were talking about unvirtuous behaviours that diverged from their virtuous aim (mainly referring to harmony preservation), they did not hide failures and conflicts. "In your new workplaces, I’m sure you will encounter hardships and demanding tasks. The same was true for me. On joining Toyota mid-career, I struggled with unreasonable conditions and felt frustrated by my lack of ability time and again." – A. Toyoda "I demonstrate to everybody, to rank and file, failures. It’s important how CEOs appraise performance." – T. Niinami Japanese forgiveness: Group solidarity. The Japanese servant leaders explicitly stressed the importance of mistake acceptance, also to ensure harmony which is a delicate balance between others and self. They called for risk-taking and support from the group. The Japanese leaders were concerned with their followers’ need of belonging. They aimed to secure it by maintaining group integrity, which requires everyone to feel at ease without fear of tearing the union apart. "When we see our colleagues getting in trouble, we should encourage each other. Tell your colleagues (…) President Toyoda said failure is proof that you took on new challenges. We’re rooting for you, so keep at it!" – A. Toyoda "If he or she fails a project I would never put in penalty. (…) if she or he is doing fine in terms of making simple mistakes just going toward the risk-taking I think I’m fine with that. (…) It’s important for young people, rank and files, to see that a lot of challenges have a lot of failures." – T. Niinami Discussion and Conclusions This research captured cultural differences in the practice of servant leadership across different countries. Our findings indicate that servant leaders in different cultures address followers’ needs and expectations differently. Cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1983), which demonstrate general cultural differences between countries, help explain the differences. Specifically, we could observe an individual-focus in Italy (which is individualistic) vs. a group-focus in Japan (which is collectivistic), in response to uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, which are prevalent cultural tendencies in both countries. When expressing commitment to convey security, Italian servant leaders stressed their orientation towards individualism-related arguments such as welfare, uniqueness, and development, whereas Japanese servant leaders chose to stress harmony and togetherness, which are arguments related to collectivism. While servant leadership needed to handle and reconcile contradictions in both countries, in the Italian approach self-restrain despite ambition was a most salient contradiction, whereas vulnerability despite courage was more salient in the Japanese approach. Hence, how security is experienced and addressed seems to depend on the structure of a society’s relational network and how the individual is placed in this network. In Italy, the servant leaders we analysed were aiming to channel ambition into the ideal of achieving individual and collective dignity, exploiting the relevance of family. Indeed, as a society with strong family ties, Italians tend to focus on the good of their family and neglect the relevance of working
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjc4MQ==