Culture and Leadership and Culture Thesis

There are different styles and measurements that have been used by this model in reflecting on the relationship between culture and leadership. The model proposes and stands by the fact that transformational leadership is a building that is established with the use of an appropriate avenue of culture. The model states and supports the fact that it becomes highly possible to have a genuine basement. This is a basement in which all the possible avenues of performances and attributes are giving to the generalized states of establishing and leading people. Culture can be dominant in some situations. Nonetheless, the establishment and building of culture is because there are many attributes of change and management that will call for the establishment and maintenance of a good cultural background at any given time. According to studies, transformational leadership styles are more effective than transactional leadership styles, and transactional leadership styles are more effective than Laissez-faire. These are some of the basic establishments and factors that promote the general growth and development of the cultural heritages within leadership. The difference in the leadership styles is also a reflection of the difference that is possible to be realized within the nodes of cultural heritages in the society.

According to studies, cultures can be different between countries. For instance, the cultural heritages in Japan are different from those in the United States of America. In general, terms, there is a whole nobility of dwelling within a given call of purpose and the intention of the leaders in place. Other cultures like that of Japan differ significantly from that of the U.S.A. where Bass and Avolio's (1997) full-range model was developed.

According to Hodgetts and Luthans, universality is evidently therefore limited and/or conditional. Hodgetts and Luthans (2002: 431) also suggest, "culture can create some problems in using universal leadership concepts in countries such as Japan, where the use of contingent reward systems is not as widely adopted as in the west." Therefore, it seems evident that there is sufficient cause to question the suitability of Bass and Avolio's (1997) full- range model (see Table I) to Japan and to look to identify alternative, culture-specific conceptualizations of Japanese leadership.The general nature of leadership is a fact that needs to be established within common rudimentary approaches of growth and development in the specified country. There is no way a country can exist without its innate culture or cultural backgrounds. Nonetheless, there is a generalized possibility that any avenue of growth and development can be developed within the existing trends of performance in any given scale of performance in the market (Harvard business review on breakthrough leadership, 2001).

The entire notion of having a leadership trend that is based on the established avenues of performance is a true reflection of how many factors of production are directed at establishing a commonality in the society as concerns that fact of togetherness. In Japan and many other nations like the United States of America, it is very possible to have a correlation between culture and trends of leadership including the leaders. In general, leadership and culture are two facets of day-to-day management in the society. This does not apply in Japan alone but the entire world (Jan and Daniel, 2008).

References

Harvard business review on breakthrough leadership. (2001). Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Hodgetts, Richard M., Luthans, Fred, & Doh, Jonathan P. (2005). International Management:

Culture, Strategy, and Behavior W / Olc Card Mp. Irwin Professional Pub.

Jan P. Muczyk and Daniel T. Holt. (2008).Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership: Journal….....