Content uploaded by Todd J Weber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Todd J Weber on May 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis across
38 countries☆
Golnaz Sadri
a,
⁎, Todd J. Weber
b
, William A. Gentry
c
a
California State University, Fullerton, USA
b
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
c
Center for Creative Leadership, USA
article info abstract
Available online 24 August 2011 The purpose of our research is to examine the relationship between subordinate ratings of a
target-leader's empathic emotion and boss ratings of performance of that target-leader.
Furthermore, using hierarchical linear modeling, we assess whether the cultural background of
the target-leader moderates this relationship. Our results show that leaders who are rated by
their subordinates as engaging in behaviors that signal empathic emotion are perceived as
better performers by their bosses. In addition, we found that the GLOBE societal culture
dimension of power distance was a significant cross-level moderator of the relationship
between empathic emotion and performance. Implications for leading in cross-cultural and
multicultural contexts are discussed.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Culture
Empathic emotion
Hierarchical linear modeling
Multisource
Power distance
1. Introduction
Empathy is a construct that is fundamental to leadership. Although the ability to be empathic does not make one a leader,
numerous theories suggest the ability to have and display empathy is an important part of leadership. For example, one aspect of
transformational leadership is the ability of the leader to show individualized consideration to followers (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1995;
Bass, 1985) and to accurately recognize emotion in others (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). Another example is the developing
research on authentic leadership which emphasizes the ability of a leader to be aware both of him/herself as well as the context
(e.g., Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). In addition to
being relevant to specific leadership theories, empathy is a key to the construct of emotional intelligence (EI) that some have
argued is highly relevant to leadership (Bar-On & Parker, 2000; George, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Our research specifically examines one aspect of empathy as defined by Goleman (2006), namely empathic emotion (see also
Duan, 2000; Duan & Hill, 1996). Leaders must be able to convey empathic emotion, defined as the ability to understand what
others are feeling (Duan, 2000; Duan & Hill, 1996; Goleman, 2006) in order to be effective. Furthermore, they need to actively
share emotions with others, in addition to passively experiencing the feelings of others (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006). We
attempt to extend previous research on empathy by examining the link between a leader's ability to display behaviors of empathic
emotion (as assessed by his/her subordinates) and the leader's performance (as assessed by his/her boss). This is in line with
previous research that has noted that bosses and subordinates may focus on different types of outcomes for a target-leader, with
bosses emphasizing the task performance (e.g., technical competence) of their subordinates (the target-leader), while the target-
leader's subordinates value the contextual performance (e.g., integrity) of their leader (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). The focus
The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
☆Portions of this paper are based on a poster that was presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, New York, New York,
April, 2007.
⁎Corresponding author at: Department of Management, Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, 800 N. State College
Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92834, USA. Tel.: +1 657 278 2162; fax: +1 657 278 2645.
E-mail address: gsadri@fullerton.edu (G. Sadri).
1048-9843/$ –see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.005
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
on subordinate perceptions of empathic emotion is particularly important because a leader experiencing feelings of empathy is
unlikely to influence others if the followers do not perceive those feelings via displays of empathic emotion. Examining the link
between subordinate perceptions of a leader's empathic emotion and boss perceptions of a leader's performance is important both
for the predictive power of the empathy construct and to determine whether empirical support exists for its broader use in the
leadership literature.
In addition, our research examines the relationship between empathy and leadership performance in a global context. This is
an important area to study, given the likelihood that preferences for a leader expressing empathy or, more specifically, behaving in
a way that displays empathic emotion are likely to be influenced by cultural values.
Thus, the purpose of the present research is twofold: first, we examine the link between subordinate ratings of a target-leader's
empathic emotion and the target-leader's performance as rated by his/her boss. Second, we assess the moderating effect of the
cultural dimension of power distance on the relationship between subordinate ratings of empathic emotion and boss ratings of the
target-leader's performance. We begin with a discussion of why we expect several key relationships to exist, and move from there
into our tests of these hypotheses.
1.1. Empathy and performance
The concept of empathy is well established in the counseling and psychotherapy literature (e.g., Gladstein, 1977, 1987; Rogers,
1951, 1957, 1961), and has been shown to be related to work performance across a wide range of arenas including physicians' use
of open and reassuring communication styles (Silvester, Patterson, Koczwara, & Ferguson, 2007), job interview performance (Fox
& Spector, 2000), improved patient treatment (Friedman & DiMatteo, 1982), displays of organizational citizenship behaviors
(Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, & Duell, 2006), and improved sales performance (Tobolski & Kerr, 1952).
In a study of 168 Organizational Behavior students, Kellett, Humphrey, and Sleeth (2002) examined the relationships between
empathy, performance of complex tasks and impressions of leadership in small workgroups. Both empathy and perceptions of
leadership were based on ratings provided by two other people in the respective person's group. They found that both empathy
and performance of complex tasks were positively related to perceived leadership. In a second study of 198 Organizational
Behavior students, Kellett et al. (2006) investigated relationships between empathy as well as several additional emotional
abilities and leadership emergence. They found that empathy showed a strong positive association with relational leadership and
task leadership.
Skinner and Spurgeon (2005) conducted a study with 96 middle and senior level health managers working for the Western
Australian Health Department. They examined the relationship between health managers' self-assessed empathy, their leadership
behaviors as rated by their subordinates and subordinates' personal ratings on a number of work satisfaction and related outcome
measures. Empathy showed a significant positive relationship to transformational leadership, a negative relationship to laissez-
faire leadership and was not significantly related to transactional leadership.
Goleman (2006, p. 137) suggests that empathy “represents the foundation skill for all social competencies important for work.”
He defines empathy as “sensing what people are feeling, being able to take their perspective, and cultivating rapport and
attunement with a broad diversity of people”(Goleman, 2006, p. 318). Goleman's definition captures three aspects of empathy:
intellectual empathy, empathic emotion and building rapport. Intellectual empathy is the ability to take another's perspective;
empathic emotion is the ability to feel what others are feeling; building rapport is the ability to cultivate rapport with a broad
diversity of people (Duan, 2000; Duan & Hill, 1996). The present research focuses on the second of these components of empathy:
empathic emotion.
Effective leaders, more than ineffective leaders, are considerate of and sensitive to the needs of others, specifically their
followers (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Leaders who display empathy through their general behavior are seen as more effective than
leaders who do not display such behaviors (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). In part, this is because such displays reduce the
concern that subordinates will be unduly judged or criticized (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997), which is likely to positively influence their
perception of their leaders (George, 2000; Lewis, 2000). Moreover, if leaders display empathic emotion, they may be able to better
understand others and such understanding can help build and strengthen relationships, provide support for others, and increase
communication and performance (Humphrey, 2002; Kellett et al., 2006; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002). Based on this line of
reasoning, we expect empathic emotion specifically to be positively related to performance:
Hypothesis 1.Behaviors that convey empathic emotion will be positively related to perceptions of leadership performance.Specifically,
leaders rated higher on empathic emotion will receive higher performance ratings.
1.2. Empathy and societal culture
Though empathy has been considered an important concept to examine in leadership research, the literature has not focused
on empathy, or more specifically, empathic emotion, in a cross-cultural context. With a concept as common to various leadership
approaches as empathy, there is a real need to examine possible cross-cultural differences in the empathic emotion–performance
relationship. It is unknown whether empathic emotion is useful for leaders working in a cross-cultural context. Leaders displaying
empathic emotion successfully in one culture may not find empathic emotion to be as effective in other cultures since some
cultures may not value such behaviors as much as other cultures. Before discussing empathic emotion in a cross-cultural setting,
819G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
we discuss culture more broadly and identify the cultural framework used in this research. We then turn to the more focused topic
of potential cultural differences in how cultures view the empathic emotion of leaders.
1.3. Societal culture
Culture generally relates to how the world is perceived and organized by a group of people (Hall, 1973). We are specifically
interested in culture at the national or societal level of analysis, though we recognize cultural boundaries are unlikely to match
national boundaries. Culture has been an area of substantial research (Wright & Ricks, 1994), and there are a number of major
studies and frameworks that have examined these dynamics, including work by Hofstede (2001), Triandis (1995), Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner (1998), the GLOBE project (House et al., 1999), Inglehart, Basáñez, and Moreno (1998), and Schwartz
(1994).
One of the dominant approaches to examining culture has been the work of Hofstede (1984, p. 13), who defines culture as the
“collective programming of the mind”and suggests that culture affects work-related values, attitudes and behaviors. He also
indicated that each culture includes a common code or language, a common heritage, history, social organization, set of norms,
knowledge, attitudes, values, beliefs, objects, and patterns of perception that are accepted (implicitly and/or explicitly) by a
particular group. Culture originates in a person's social environment and is passed on from one generation to the next (Hofstede,
1991).
Based partially on Hofstede's work, the GLOBE project identified nine cultural dimensions (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004). They suggest that “the most parsimonious operationalizations of societal culture consist of commonly experienced
language, ideological belief systems (including religion and political belief systems), ethnic heritage, and history”(House &
Javidan, 2004, p. 15). Each dimension was examined at both the organizational and societal level, and included measures of current
practice (i.e., which practices were being used) as well as measures of preferences for practices (i.e., what practices should be
used). This approach to examining culture has generated some debate (Earley, 2006; Hofstede, 2006; Javidan, House, Dorfman,
Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006; Smith, 2006), but seems promising on several conceptual and methodological levels. A number of
empirical investigations using these dimensions are beginning to emerge (e.g., Fu et al., 2004; Resick, Hanges, Dickson, &
Mitchelson, 2006). Given the contributions the GLOBE study has made to conceptualizing and measuring culture, we will utilize
the GLOBE framework for this paper.
The nine cultural dimensions identified by House et al. (2004) are: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional
collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and humane
orientation. As leaders are increasingly asked to work across cultural borders and within culturally diverse communities, it has
become increasingly important to examine the relationship between leadership behaviors such as empathic emotion and
leadership performance in multicultural settings. We propose that displaying behaviors of empathic emotion will be perceived as
more effective in some cultures than in others. We argue that culture is likely to have a moderating effect on the relationship
between empathic emotion and performance, similar to others who have viewed national culture as a moderator (e.g.,
Boyacigiller, Kleinberg, Sackmann, & Phillips, 1996; Earley & Erez, 1997; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). The present research
focuses on power distance, the rationale for which is explained next.
1.4. Differences across cultures
There is evidence that various organizational constructs differ across cultures. For example, in a five-country study of the
impact of culture on equity sensitivity, Chhokar, Zhuplev, Fok, and Hartman (2001) found that American, Russian and Indian
respondents were more benevolence oriented, while British and French respondents were more entitlement oriented. DeVoe and
Iyengar (2004) examined the relationship between managers' perceptions of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and their
appraisals of performance. They found that North American managers perceived their employees as being primarily extrinsically
motivated. However, perceptions of intrinsic motivation were a stronger predictor of performance appraisals. Asian managers
perceived their employees as being equally intrinsically and extrinsically motivated and both motivations were strong predictors
of performance appraisals. Latin American managers perceived their employees as being more intrinsically motivated and only
their perceptions of intrinsic motivation were related to their appraisals of performance. Transactional and transformational
leadership across cultures have also been examined comparing Egypt to the United States (e.g., Shahin & Wright, 2004) and
between Australian and non-Australian work groups (Brian & Lewis, 2004).
1.5. Empathy across cultures
More specifically, there are also studies that have attempted to examine empathy across different cultures. Recent studies have
been published in the health, developmental, counseling or therapy literature, examining the importance of empathy for a sample
within a country or between countries (e.g., Mete, 2007; Takahashi & Overton, 2002), or the capacity for felt empathy from the
counselor as an outcome within a cross-cultural setting (e.g., Burkard & Knox, 2004; Kim, Ng, & Ahn, 2005) but the focus was not a
cross-cultural comparison of empathy or empathic emotion on outcomes specifically. Aside from this literature, Aaker and
Williams (1998) used a cultural perspective in their cross-cultural comparison of undergraduate students at an American and a
Chinese university. They examined the persuasive effect of ego-focused (e.g., happiness, pride) and other-focused (e.g., empathy,
peacefulness) emotional advertisements for a beer product. Counter to their expectations, they found that ego-focused emotions
820 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
were more persuasive for members of collectivist cultures while other-focused appeals were more persuasive for members of
individualistic cultures.
Closer to the organizational context of the present research, a study by Rahim et al. (2002) showed that the relationship
between empathy and motivation was positive across five countries (United States, Bangladesh, Greece, Portugal, South Africa),
was nonsignificantly positive for China, and was nonsignificantly negative for Hong Kong. The focus of the Rahim et al. study was
more to test a model of emotional intelligence on conflict management strategies using MBA students rather than a study whose
purpose was to hypothesize and examine cross-cultural effects guided by the culture literature on practicing managers and
leaders.
As one can see, there is precedence for a study of empathy across cultures. Yet, relating empathic emotion to performance of a
leader has not been examined cross-culturally, particularly with a focus on culture as a moderator of the relationship. As an
extension of previous research, we examine power distance as a possible cultural moderator, and explain the rationale for its use in
the following section.
1.6. Power distance
Power distance is “the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified
and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government”(House & Javidan, 2004, p. 12). Cultures with high power
distance believe power should be concentrated at higher levels and a wider behavioral distinction between leaders and employees
may exist in such cultures. Carl, Gupta, and Javidan (2004) note that societies higher in power distance tend to have stable and
scarce power bases (e.g., ownership of land) while societies lower on power distance have transient and sharable power bases
(e.g., knowledge, skills). The role of power differs among these types of cultures. In societies higher on power distance, power
provides harmony, social order and role stability. In societies lower on power distance, power is associated with corruption,
coercion and dominance. Societies lower on power distance have high upward social mobility, societies higher on power distance
have limited upward social mobility. Low power distance cultures share information and members of all groups are equally
involved in decisions. Conversely, information is localized in high power distance cultures, involvement differs depending on
group membership and there is not an assurance of equal opportunities for all.
Carl et al. (2004) note a link between power distance and performance exists such that if a society's power distance values and/
or practices increase, it is less likely that participative leadership is seen as effective. Dorfman, Hanges, and Brodbeck (2004) note
that participative leaders involve others in creating and executing decisions. We suggest that in cultures where leaders are
expected to be powerful and act independently, empathic emotion of leaders is unlikely to be particularly compelling. Thus, in
high power distance cultures, leaders will not be expected to display as much empathy and will not be judged harshly when they
are not empathic. However, empathic emotion is likely to be more important in cultures low on power distance where everyone is
involved in decisions, and therefore the ability to feel what others are feeling is important to decision outcomes and the
performance of a leader.
Several studies examining the cultural dimension of power distance exist. Morris and Pavett (1992) compared management
styles and productivity of a U.S. plant and its Mexican maquiladora subsidiary. They found that while productivity at the two plants
was equal, a more authoritative management style was used in Mexico (a higher power distance culture) than in the U.S. (a lower
power distance culture). They suggest that “American employees are characterized as desiring participation in decision making
and as having the training (via the United States educational system) to make those decisions. Mexican workers are characterized
as expecting an authority figure to make decisions and assume responsibility”(Morris & Pavett, 1992, p. 177). Similarly,
Marcoulides, Yavas, Bilgin, and Gibson (1998) found that Turkish managers (higher on power distance) emphasized the autocratic
leadership style to a greater extent and the consensus leadership style to a lesser extent than did United States managers (lower
power distance). We suggest that empathic emotion would matter more to the performance of leaders in low power distance
cultures, who are more apt to adopt a consensus leadership style and involve others in decision making.
Eylon and Au (1999) conducted a study with 135 MBA students who participated in a management simulation. They found that
while participants from both high and low power distance cultures reported more satisfaction when empowered than when
disempowered, the high power distance participants performed at a significantly lower level in the empowered condition. They
suggest that in:
…low power distance cultures organizations are decentralized, subordinates expect to be consulted, and the ideal boss is
viewed as a resourceful democrat…high power distance participants are socialized to work under benevolent autocratic
leadership, where decisions and task guidelines are provided from above and overall the work environment is fairly
structured and formal (Barsoux & Lawrence, 1990). As a result, it is possible that they may perform better in
disempowered conditions where tasks are structured, information is more limited, and responsibilities are explicit and few
(Eylon & Au, 1999, p. 382).
Again, we suggest that such a “resourceful democrat”observed in low power distance cultures will be more useful in relation to
performance. His/her attempt to involve others and ascertain that all voices are truly heard and considered in making decisions
and accomplishing goals is vital to performance in low power distance cultures.
Pillai, Scandura, and Williams (1999) examined transformational leadership, leader member exchange, organizational justice
and job satisfaction in five cultures (United States, Australia, India, Colombia and the Middle East). They found that the relationship
821G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
between transformational leadership and job satisfaction was not significant in the non-Western cultures included in their study.
They suggest that in high power distance cultures, “subordinates may feel stressed by the leader's attempts to involve them in
coming up with creative solutions to problems…Transformational leadership is participative and may be more effective in
influencing job attitudes in low power distance countries where it complements the culture”(Pillai et al., 1999, p.774). Bass
(1990a) notes individualized consideration (giving personal attention, coaching, advising) as one of the characteristics of
transformational leaders. We suggest that empathic emotion contributes to these behaviors and is thus an important component
of transformational leadership and therefore, likely to be of higher value in low power distance cultures. Pasa (2000) explored
influence strategies toward subordinates in Turkey. The most commonly observed influence behavior was tacit influence where
compliance was achieved through the granted power/authority of the leader. One conclusion from the study was that influence
tactics used in the West are not used frequently in cultures high on power distance.
In a review of research examining leadership in a cross-cultural context, Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson (2003) conclude
that power distance influences various aspects of leadership. Low power distance cultures prefer egalitarian leadership. Leaders in
high power distance cultures tend to be less participative, more authoritative and more directive. Again, we feel that empathic
emotion can play an important role in facilitating the communication needed for an egalitarian, participative style of leadership
Thus, we suggest that while successful leadership is generally related to the ability of others to feel that their leader understands
and values them (Kellett et al., 2006), the value placed on empathic emotion may be more pronounced for leaders in low power
distance cultures because in such cultures, interactions with others and the ability to participate with and understand others is
more crucial. As previously discussed, in low power distance cultures, consultation with others is expected (Eylon & Au, 1999), and
it is appropriate to involve everyone in solutions (Pillai et al., 1999). Thus, we propose that in lower power distance cultures where
patterns of interaction are likely to be more informal and participative leadership is more commonplace with an emphasis on
understanding and working with others, displaying empathic emotion is likely to have a much greater value on performance than
in high power distance cultures where authority is concentrated and located high in the leadership structure and there is less
expectation that empathy should be related to high performance of leaders.
Table 1
Number of managers within each country for the present study.
Country n
Argentina 53
Australia 378
Austria 39
Brazil 94
Canada 875
China 68
Colombia 30
Denmark 72
Egypt 66
Finland 39
France 244
Germany 274
Greece 27
Hong Kong 54
India 235
Indonesia 80
Ireland 144
Italy 66
Japan 58
Malaysia 48
Mexico 229
Netherlands 334
New Zealand 192
Philippines 85
Poland 52
Portugal 37
Russia 33
Singapore 387
South Korea 75
Spain 278
Sweden 64
Switzerland 86
Taiwan 38
Thailand 44
Turkey 58
United Kingdom 865
United States 900
Venezuela 30
822 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
Hypothesis 2.Power distance will negatively moderate the relationship between empathic emotion and performance. Specifically,
power distance will negatively impact the slope of the relationship between empathic emotion and performance so that the relationship
between behaviors signaling empathic emotion and performance will be weaker in high power distance cultures relative to low power
distance cultures.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
Data were gathered from an archival database of multisource ratings from practicing managers around the world participating
in a developmental process. The data came from managers who asked their coworkers (e.g., bosses and any direct reports they
wished) to fill out the multisource instrument used in this study. The managers also filled out the instrument themselves. The
available data used in this study were from those who filled out the instrument in English only. The final sample used for this study
was based on: (a) leaders currently working in their country of origin; (b) no missing multisource data of at least 20 leaders per
country; and (c) the country possessing a power distance score from the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) study. By adhering to these
guidelines, there were 37,095 practicing leaders from 38 countries. The vast majority of them (80%) were from the United States,
and more than 1400 were from Canada. All the other countries had less than 1000. In an attempt to correct such an imbalance, we
then picked a random sample of 900 leaders from the United States and 875 leaders from Canada, which totaled 6731 leaders used
in our study (see Table 1 for the number of managers from each country). A leader's age, gender, organization and job tenure, and
organization level were readily available for analyses. However, education, ethnicity/race and compensation were not used due
either to certain countries limiting the collection of this type of information or because such items are not applicable to such an
international sample.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Performance
We used boss ratings of each target-leader to measure performance in order to be consistent with past research that suggests
boss ratings to be the most common and reliable way to measure performance of a target-leader (Conway, 2000; Conway &
Huffcutt, 1997; Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). The boss of each target-leader rated the target-leader on a 5-point, Likert-
type response format on three separate questions: (a) “How would you rate this person's performance in his/her present job”(1 =
among the worst to 5 = among the best)(M=4.20, SD = .84); (b) “Where would you place this person as a leader compared to
other leaders inside and outside your organization”(1 = among the worst to 5 = among the best)(M=3.86, SD = .92); and
(c) “What is the likelihood that this person will derail (i.e., plateau, be demoted, or fired) in the next five years as a result of his/her
actions or behaviors as a manager?”(1 = not at all likely to 5 =almost certain) (reversed M= 4.24, SD= .92). The directions of the
multisource instrument stated that these three questions were for research purposes only, and therefore, the target-leader would
not receive any feedback or results from these three specific questions. Because two different response scales were used, ratings
for the three items were standardized to account for differences in the scales and we then averaged them together to form a boss
rating of target-leader performance. This follows previous published research (e.g., Gentry, Weber, & Sadri, 2008; Graves, Ohlott, &
Ruderman, 2007; Van Velsor, Taylor, & Leslie, 1993) which also standardized the three items for the same reason. Cronbach's alpha
was .76 for the present study. A principal axis exploratory factor analysis using the “eigenvalue greater than 1”criteria resulted in
one factor explaining 55% of the variance with all three items loading at a minimum of .52.
2.2.2. Empathic emotion
We gathered ratings of empathic emotion via a multisource developmental feedback instrument called BENCHMARKS®
1
(Lombardo & McCauley, 1994; Lombardo, McCauley, McDonald-Mann, & Leslie, 1999; McCauley & Lombardo, 1990). We measured
empathic emotion using only the rating source of subordinates as precedence exists in research that suggests ratings from the
perspective of followers or subordinates are the most appropriate for describing and evaluating leader behavior (Ashford, 1989;
Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Bass, 1990b). Subordinates of each target-leader rated the extent to which the target-leader
displayed behaviors of empathic emotion using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great extent). Data from
subordinates were aggregated and given back to the target-leaders anonymously.
Although there are various validated measures of empathy (e.g., Davis, 1980, 1983; Kerr & Speroff, 1951), we were not able to
take advantage of these measures because this study is based on data from an existing archival database. Instead, we first reviewed
all of the items from the multisource instrument and identified 12 items that were related to the concept of empathy. We then
attempted to address content validity issues by instructing subject matter experts to rate how well each of the items mapped onto
the following definition of empathic emotion: “The ability to sense what others are feeling”(Duan, 2000; Duan & Hill, 1996;
Goleman, 2006). Twelve subject matter experts with advanced degrees in business and I-O psychology rated the items on a 7-
point scale (1 = very inconsistent,7=very consistent). Of the 12 items we initially selected from the multisource instrument, four
items had r
wg(j)
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) values above .70 and a mean consistency rating of 5.45. This content analysis
1
BENCHMARKS® is a registered trademark of the Center for Creative Leadership.
823G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
process showed a strong conceptual overlap between these four items and empathic emotion as defined in the empathy literature.
Cronbach's alpha for the four items is .81 for the present study. Furthermore, a principal axis exploratory factor analysis using the
“eigenvalue greater than 1”criteria resulted in one factor explaining two-thirds of the variance with all four items adopted in this
study loading at a minimum of .70. An example item states: “Is sensitive to signs of overwork in others.”
To further demonstrate validation evidence of our measure of empathy, we conducted a survey of 198 students from two large
universities in the Midwest and western US that compared our survey items with those from Davis (1983). Participants were fairly
evenly split in terms of gender (female=46.7%), had an average age of 23.7, and most them (73.4%) currently were working and
had an average of 3.26 years of work experience. Since our survey items were phrased as other ratings of empathy and the Davis
items were self-ratings, we created self- and other ratings of both scales and asked each participant to respond to both sets of
ratings. The results showed a high correlation between the two measures regardless of the referent [self-rating r=.52 (pb0.01),
other rating r=.71 (pb0.01)]. These results offer evidence that the empathy scale we created from our archival data is closely
related to an established measure of empathy.
2.2.3. Power distance
We used the published country scores from GLOBE as our measure of power distance. We opted to use the societal values scores
(how things should be) rather than the societal practice scores (how things are) as it best reflected the cultural values and
preferences (see House et al., 2004, for a description of scale development and for country power distance values scores).
2.2.4. Control variables
Several variables were controlled for in the analyses. First, gender (coded 0 = Male, 1 = Female), age, and the human capital
variables of job and organization tenure (continuous variables) were included as past research has shown that these variables may
account for variance in performance outcomes (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Judiesch & Lyness, 1999; Ng, Eby, Sorensen,
& Feldman, 2005). Moreover, because we had a wide variety of leaders working across organizations, we also controlled for
managerial level (coded 0 = First-level, 1 = Middle-level, 2 = Upper-Middle level, 3 = Executive, 4 = Top).
2.3. Analytic approach
Our archival data contained practicing leaders nested within many countries (culture). With such a nested relationship,
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is the most appropriate analytic technique (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Traditional ordinary-
least-squares (OLS) regression methods would neglect such a nested relationship, culminating in misleading results. The nested
relationship of leaders within countries is a natural fit for HLM, as evidenced by recent research that has used HLM particularly in a
cross-cultural research context (e.g., Gentry et al., 2008; Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt, 2005; Lyness & Judiesch, 2008;
Parboteeah, Bronson, & Cullen, 2005). Our hypotheses examined two models. The first is a Level-1 model, or “Random Coefficient”
model which examines the Level-1 relationship between subordinate ratings of empathic emotion and boss ratings of
performance, which tested Hypothesis 1. The second, a Level-2 (country) “Slopes-as-Outcomes”model used the GLOBE values of
power distance to examine culture's possible moderating effect of the Level-1 empathic emotion–performance relationship, which
tested Hypothesis 2.
2.4. Aggregation issues
An average of 3.92 subordinates (SD = 1.18; range 3–15) rated each target-leader on our measure of empathic emotion. To
consider aggregation of subordinate ratings of empathic emotion, we calculated three statistics. First, we examined ICC(1) which
gives the degree of reliability related to an assessment of the group mean (Bliese, 2000). For our data, ICC(1) was .30 (F=2.68,
pb.001). Second, we calculated ICC(2) which provides an estimate of the reliability of the group means and many have used it to
justify aggregation of sources (Bliese, 2000) . For our data, ICC(2) was .63, which is considered acceptable for multisource feedback
ratings (Greguras & Robie, 1998; Van Velsor & Leslie, 1991) and furthermore, is similar to ICC(2) values from other multisource
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among level-1 variables.
Variable MSD1234567
1. Age 41.28 6.74 –
2. Gender
a
0.26 0.44 −.07 –
3. Managerial level
b
2.12 0.82 .21 −.08 –
4. Job tenure 3.89 4.31 .25 .01 .04 –
5. Organization tenure 10.15 7.65 .41 −.07 .01 .27 –
6. Empathic emotion 3.82 0.53 .05 .15 −.04 .01 .05 –
7. Performance 0.02 2.35 −.10 .05 .02 −.01 .01 .14 –
Job and Organization tenure measured in years.
All correlations greater than |.02| are significant at pb.01.
a
0 = Male, 1 = Female.
b
0 = First-level, 1 = Middle-level, 2 = Upper-Middle level, 3 = Executive, 4 = top.
824 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
studies (e.g., Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998; Fleenor, McCauley, & Brutus, 1996; Ostroff, Atwater, & Feinberg, 2004).
Finally, we calculated r
wg(j)
(James et al., 1984). The median r
wg(j)
was above .80; a minimum value of .70 generally indicates
sufficient interrater agreement to combine individual ratings into a mean (James, 1988). Taken together, the three values support
aggregation of subordinate ratings. Because no personal identification numbers for subordinates or bosses existed, and leaders and
their raters worked at many different organizations worldwide, it is assumed that different raters rated each target-leader.
3. Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the Level-1 variables are shown in Table 2.
3.1. Test of Hypothesis 1—Random Coefficient model
The “Random-Coefficient”model tests whether subordinate ratings of empathic emotion relate to boss ratings of performance.
Zeros were meaningful for age, job and organizational tenure, so these specific control variables were not centered in the HLM
equations. However, a zero was not meaningful for the other control variables, and as a result, we group-mean centered those
variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Including our control variables, the t-test [γ
60
=.577, t(37) = 8.06, pb.001] revealed that
subordinate ratings of empathic emotion of target-leaders are positively related to boss ratings of target-leaders' performance,
supporting Hypothesis 1 (see Table 3). The more target-leaders display behaviors of empathic emotion as rated by their
subordinates, the higher their performance ratings from their boss.
3.2. Test of level 2 moderating hypotheses —Slopes-as-Outcomes models
The next model tests whether power distance was a cross-level moderator. We again group-mean centered the same Level-1
variables as before (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This is especially pertinent when considering Level-2 variables as moderators of
Level-1 relationships (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). We also grand-mean centered the Level-2 variable of power distance. The t-test
[γ
61
=.684, t(36) = 2.55, p= .015] is statistically significant. Power distance as a Level-Two cultural variable was a cross-level
moderator (see Table 3). Fig. 1 displays the relationship graphically, using the 25th and 75th percentile power distance country
scores as examples. However, it is a positive, not a negative relationship; results show that the empathic emotion–performance
relationship is stronger for leaders in high power distance cultures than leaders in low power distance cultures. Though power
distance is a cross-level moderator, the direction is opposite from what was proposed in Hypothesis 2.
An alternative explanation for this moderation effect could be that empathic emotion influenced which leader chose to
participate in this study. However, this seems unlikely since our measures come from an archival database of managers who
participated for developmental purposes. Empathy was not a criterion for inclusion in participants' developmental processes.
4. Discussion
Prior research has linked empathy to the successful work performance of physicians, salesmen and healthcare managers
(Friedman & DiMatteo, 1982; Silvester et al., 2007; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005; Tobolski & Kerr, 1952). The present findings extend
this prior research. We found that higher ratings of empathic emotion from the target-leader's subordinates positively related to
higher ratings of performance from the perspective of the target-leader's boss. This finding makes an important empirical
contribution to the existing leadership literature, demonstrating that empathy, specifically, empathic emotion is a meaningful
component of leadership and important toward performance when tested across an international sample of practicing managers.
Table 3
Hierarchical linear modeling models and results for empathic emotion and power distance on performance.
Variable Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2
γ
x0
γ
x0
γ
01
γ
61
Intercept 2.211⁎⁎ 2.214⁎⁎
Age −0.059⁎⁎ −0.058⁎⁎
Gender
a
0.103 0.110
Managerial level
b
0.179⁎⁎ 0.173⁎⁎
Job tenure 0.008 0.008
Organization tenure 0.021⁎⁎ 0.020⁎⁎
Empathic emotion 0.577⁎⁎ 0.562⁎⁎
Power distance −0.244⁎0.684⁎
Age, Job and Organization tenure measured in years.
Hypothesis 1 = Random Coefficient model; Hypothesis 2 = Slopes-as-Outcomes.
All coefficients rounded to three decimal places.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
a
0 = Male, 1 = Female.
b
0 = First-level, 1 = Middle-level, 2 = Upper-Middle level, 3 = Executive, 4 = Top.
⁎pb.05.
825G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
Kellett et al. (2002) found that empathy influenced the perception of an individual as a leader. Similarly, we found that displays of
emotional abilities, specifically empathic emotion, influenced the perception of job performance for target-leaders. Past research
has shown that effective leaders need empathy (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Kellett
et al., 2002, 2006; Yukl, 1998). Our research extends previous research by showing that the ability of leaders to display empathic
emotion from the perspective of their subordinates is positively related to their performance as perceived by their respective
bosses.
Moreover, previous studies show that many constructs, including empathy and its relationship to other constructs, may differ
across cultures (Aaker & Williams, 1998; Chhokar et al., 2001; DeVoe & Iyengar, 2004). Our goal was to assess whether the
relationship between subordinate ratings of empathic emotion and boss ratings of performance was moderated by the cultural
background of the target-leader. We hypothesized the moderator would have a negative impact on the slope of the relationship
between power distance and empathic emotion (i.e., the relationship between the two variables would be weaker for high power
distance cultures than for low power distance cultures). Our findings ran counter to this hypothesis. While we found that in both
low and high power distance cultures, high empathic emotion led to higher ratings of performance, the magnitude of this
relationship was stronger in high power distance cultures. Thus, while high power distance cultures believe that power in
organizations and institutions should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels and as such, leaders are not expected to show
as much empathy as leaders in low power distance cultures, our findings suggest that when leaders at those higher levels display
empathic emotion, it has a very positive impact upon ratings of performance.
Yan and Hunt (2005) suggest that in high power distance cultures, paternalism characterizes leader-subordinate relationships.
“In a paternalistic culture, people in authority assume the role of a parent and consider it an obligation to provide support and
protection to those under their care”(Yan & Hunt, 2005, p. 56). Aycan et al. (2000) note that paternalism is viewed as a highly
desirable leadership characteristic in Eastern cultures while in Western societies, it implies authoritarianism and is viewed
negatively. In a study of ten countries, Aycan et al. found that India, Pakistan, China and Turkey scored highest on both paternalism
and power distance (Russia also scored high on power distance but only in the mid-range on paternalism). Our results suggest that
empathic emotion plays an important role in creating this paternalistic climate of support and protection and integrates well with
the findings from Aycan et al.'s study linking paternalism and paternalistic behaviors (such as empathic emotion) to high power
distance cultures.
4.1. Implications for practice
Our research shows that empathic emotion is an important leadership behavior across cultures, however, it is also a culturally
relative behavior, resulting in higher performance ratings in high power distance cultures. Some people naturally exude empathic
emotion and such individuals would find it easy to express empathic emotion in their role as a leader, while other people have
difficulty expressing it. However, we suggest that most leaders are likely to fall somewhere in the mid-range between very high
-1.78
-1.14
-0.49
0.15
0.80
Performance
-2.61 -1.65 -0.70 0.25
Emp a th ic Em otion
GVPD = 25t h Per cent il e
GVPD = 75t h Per cent il e
Fig. 1. The moderating effects of power distance on the relationship between empathic emotion and performance using the 25th and 75th percentile “power
distance”countries.
826 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
and very low empathic emotion behaviors. Such leaders can be coached, as appropriate, to display behaviors related to empathic
emotion both when working at home as well as prior to being sent on expatriate assignments.
The present research can assist global leaders in developing cultural intelligence, defined by Earley and Ang (2003) as an
individual's ability to effectively adapt across different cultures. Ng and Earley (2006) note the importance of cultural intelligence
in the current global and diverse workplace. Earley and Mosakowski (2004) suggest that a person with high cultural intelligence is
able to understand, persevere and master interactions with people in new cultures. A number of authors have commented on the
importance to global leaders of developing cultural intelligence (e.g., Peterson, 2004; Thomas, 2006; Triandis, 2006). Thomas
(2006) suggests that in order to develop cultural intelligence, an individual needs to simultaneously display a number of skills, for
example: be aware of his/her assumptions, ideas and emotions; attend to the context to help interpret what is happening; use
empathy in order to understand the situation and the other party's feelings toward it from the perspective of the other party's
cultural background.
Brislin, Worthley, and MacNab (2006) provide a four-step procedure for developing cultural intelligence, the first of which is to
consider behaviors people will engage in during an overseas assignment, followed by introducing reasons for these behaviors,
considering the emotional implications and then using the new knowledge to assist in learning about other behaviors. Our
research helps with the first step in this process. We suggest that in order for managers and leaders going to high power distance
cultures to be successful, they will likely be required to display more behaviors signaling empathic emotion.
There is a call for more culturally “attuned and emotionally sensitive global leaders”(Alon & Higgins, 2005, p. 501). Expatriate
assignments are on the rise and are often costly for organizations. Dowling, Welch, and Schuler (1999) estimate the compensation
package for an expatriate to be up to four or five times higher than the base managerial salary. To ensure greater expatriate success,
organizations have invested in cross-cultural training and researchers have focused on improving the effectiveness of such
training (Bhagat & Prien, 1996; Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000; Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Deshpande & Viswesvaran, 1992; Earley, 1987;
Lievens, Harris, Van Keer, & Bisqueret, 2003). Empathy in general, and specifically empathic emotion, could potentially be taught
as part of this type of training. For example, Harris and Moran (1987) list empathy as one of the key behaviors leading to success in
expatriate assignments. Jokinen (2005) classifies empathy as an important global leadership competency, and Mendez-Russell
(2001) notes that empathy is a key component of diversity leadership, a skill likely to be helpful in multicultural settings. Our
results suggest that the relative importance of teaching empathy varies depending upon the country to which the expatriate is
going. Further research is needed to test the relative importance of empathy in general across other cultural dimensions.
Our results have implications not only for the content but also for the format of diversity training. While such training typically
focuses on classroom sessions and role-playing exercises, we suggest that one-to-one coaching be added to the curriculum to help
teach and train executives to display relevant and appropriate leadership behaviors such as empathic emotion.
4.2. Limitations and future research
Our findings have important implications for both expatriate leaders and for those leading in a culturally diverse work
environment. However, there are a number of limitations with our research. First, the country scores from the GLOBE dimensions
that we used in our analysis have the implicit assumption that cultural boundaries match country boundaries, which fails to take
into account any within-country differences that might be present due to subcultures within a given country or differences due to
contextual factors such as organization culture. This challenge is not unique to the GLOBE framework or to our study, but it is a
limitation. There is evidence that cultural values (e.g., preferences for individualism and collectivism) do vary substantially within
a given country (Au, 1999; Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Future research might consider
both within-country as well as between-country differences. We also did not directly measure the cultural values of our study
participants, rather we inferred such preferences from House et al.'s (2004) pre-existing GLOBE research. This makes the implicit
assumption that cultural values are shared within cultures and that values are relatively stable over a short span of time. We
suggest that where possible, future research measure cultural values of participants directly.
An additional limitation with this research is that we do not have specific, detailed descriptions of empathy behaviors. In other
words, when subordinates perceive a leader as displaying empathic emotion, what specific behaviors are they observing?
Identification of such behavioral indices might be very beneficial in coaching and training leaders both for expatriate assignments
and also helpful to those leaders working with an ethnically diverse workforce. Related to this, we created our measure of
empathic emotion from an archival datasource, consisting of four items. While this measure has reasonable psychometric
properties and we made several efforts to assure we were getting at our construct, a four item measure brings with it the potential
for limited construct coverage. Thus, while the use of our measure allowed us to use an extensive cross-cultural database to test
our hypotheses, our operationalization of the empathic emotion construct is less extensive that it would be had we been able to
develop or use a more comprehensive measure of the construct. Future research should build upon our preliminary findings with
more comprehensive measures of empathic emotion.
In a related limitation, this study does not examine how empathic emotion (as measured here) is and is not related to other
relevant leadership constructs. For example, Yukl (1998) defines consideration as leader behavior that involves concern for people
and interpersonal relationships. This construct encompasses behaviors such as acting friendly and supportive, listening to
subordinate problems, showing concern for the needs and feelings of subordinates, consulting subordinates on important issues,
and treating subordinates as equals. There would appear to be some overlap between portions of Yukl's construct of consideration
and our construct of empathic emotion. Similarly, Bass and Avolio (1993) identify four aspects of transformational leadership:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Individualized
827G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
consideration encompasses a leader's ability to give personal attention to followers, to treat each employee individually, to coach,
mentor and advise followers (Bass, 1990a). Again, aspects of individualized consideration appear to overlap with our construct of
empathic emotion. Further research and conceptual work are needed to distinguish between empathic emotion and these
potentially related leadership constructs.
Another limitation of the present research is that, similar to other researchers, we focused on only one dimension of culture
(Kirkman et al., 2006). This methodology helps provide a greater understanding of and clarity around the cultural dimension of
power distance but fails to shed light on the interplay of a number of different cultural dimensions working simultaneously. In
addition, studying empathy more broadly (i.e. going beyond empathic emotion) across cultures is also needed in future research.
Future research might also test the cross-cultural relevance of other distinct and relevant leadership competencies and behaviors
in addition to empathy.
Finally, our study is based exclusively on archival survey data taken at one point in time. Future research might incorporate
multiple sources of data, both quantitative and qualitative. This would be particularly helpful for measuring performance. In
addition, a time-series design would further elucidate the predictive relationship of empathic emotion to leader performance.
5. Conclusion
In summary, the findings of the present research show that behaviors signaling empathic emotion are an important
international leadership behavior with regard to leader performance. Target-leaders who display empathic emotion from the
perspective of their subordinates are rated as better performers by their bosses. Moreover, the cultural dimension of power
distance moderates the relationship between empathy and boss ratings of performance. Consequently, we propose that behaviors
of empathic emotion are a culturally relative leadership behavior and are perceived as more essential to performance and to
success in high power distance cultures than in low power distance cultures. Our findings integrate well with the past two decades
of research in organizational behavior which has shown that culture plays a part in work-related values and attitudes (e.g., Earley,
Gibson, & Chen, 1999; Earley & Stubblebine, 1989; Gupta, Govindarajan, & Malhotra, 1996; Hofstede, 1984, 1991; House et al.,
2004).
References
Aaker, J. L., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research,2, 241–261.
Alon, I., & Higgins, J. M. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and cultural intelligences. Business Horizons,48, 501–512.
Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative model. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior,Vol. 11. (pp. 133–174)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management,28,
307–338.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology,51, 577–598.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?
Personnel Psychology,45, 141–164.
Au, K. Y. (1999). Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies,3, 799–812.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of
transformational leadership. Special issue: Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part I). The Leadership Quarterly,6, 199–218.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,15, 801–823.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., et al. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country
comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review,49, 192–221.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..
Barsoux, J., & Lawrence, P. (1990). Management in France. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics,18(3), 19–31.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly,17(1), 112–121.
Bhagat, R. S., & Prien, K. O. (1996). Cross-cultural training in organizational contexts. In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training
(pp. 216–230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology: An International Review,49, 162–191.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management
Review,15, 113–136.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 348–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyacigiller, N., Kleinberg, J., Sackmann, S., & Phillips, M. (1996). Conceptualizing culture. In B. J. Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international
management research (pp. 157–204). New York: Blackwell.
Brian, K., & Lewis, D. (2004). Exploring leadership preferences in multicultural workgroups: An Australian case study. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal,25, 263–278.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & MacNab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people's goals. Group and Organization Management,31,
40–55.
Burkard, A. W., & Knox, S. (2004). Effect of therapist color-blindness on empathy and attributions in cross-cultu ral counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology,51,
387–397.
Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chhokar, J. S., Zhuplev, A., Fok, L. Y., & Hartman, S. J. (2001). The impact of culture on equity sensitivity perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior: A five-
country study. International Journal of Value-Based Management,14,79–98.
Cocroft, B. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,18, 469–506.
Conway, J. M. (2000). Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human Performance,13,23–46.
828 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multi-source performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-
ratings. Human Performance,10, 331–360.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,44,
113–126.
Deshpande, S. P., & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate managers effective? A meta-analysis. Internation al Journal of Intercultural
Relations,16, 295–310.
DeVoe, S. E., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). Managers' theories of subordinates: A cross-cultural examination of manager perceptions of motivation and appraisal of
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,93,47–61.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The
Leadership Quarterly,14, 729–768.
Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. J. House,
P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1999). International human resource management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Duan, C. (2000). Being empathic: The role of motivation to empathize and the nature of target emotions. Motivation and Emotion,24,29–49.
Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,43, 261–274.
Earley, P. C. (1987). Intercultural training for managers: A comparison of documentary and interpersonal methods. Academy of Management Journal,30, 685–698.
Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 922–931.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). New perspectives on international industrial/organization psychology. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B., & Chen, C. (1999). How did I do versus how did we do? Intercultural contrasts of performance feedback search and self-efficacy in China,
Czechoslovakia, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,30, 594–619.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review,82, 139–146.
Earley, P. C., & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group and Organizational Studies,14, 161–181.
Eylon, D., & Au, K. Y. (1999). Exploring empowerment cross-cultural differences along the power distance dimension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
23, 373–385.
Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 487–506.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It's not
all just ‘G’.Journal of Organizational Behavior,21, 203–220.
Friedman, H., & DiMatteo, R. (1982). Interpersonal issues in health care. New York: Academic Press.
Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tat, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Pend, T., et al. (2004). The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived
effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies,35, 284–305.
Gentry, W. A., Weber, T. J., & Sadri, G. (2008). Examining career-related mentoring and managerial performance across cultures: A multilevel analysis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,72, 241–253.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations,53, 1027–1055.
Gladstein, G. A. (1977). Empathy and counseling outcome: An empirical and conceptual review. The Counseling Psychologist,6,70–79.
Gladstein, G. A. (1987). Counselor empathy and client outcome. In G.A. Gladstein, & associates (Eds.), Empathy and counseling: Exploration in theory and research.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Dell.
Goleman, D. (2006). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Dell.
Graves, L. M., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects on managers' attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,92,
44–56.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 960–968.
Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V., & Malhotra, A. (1996). Feedback-seeking behavior of subsidiary presidents in multinational corporations. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 151–155.
Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.
Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1987). Managing cultural differences. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management,24,
623–641.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers' minds versus respondents' minds. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 882–896.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist,49, 493–504.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: The
GLOBE project. In W. Mobley, J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership,vol. 1. (pp. 171–234)Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations:
The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenber g (Ed.), Organizational behavior:
The state of the science (pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,13, 493–504.
Inglehart, R., Basáñez, M., & Moreno, A. M. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook : Political, religious, sexual, and economic norms in 43
societies; findings from the 1990–1993 world values survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
James, L. R. (1988). Organizational climate: Another look at a potentially important construct. In S. G. Cole, & R. G. Demaree (Eds.), Applications of interactionist
psychology: Essays in honor of Saul B. Sells (pp. 253–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,69,85–98.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative
review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 897–914.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology,36, 264–277.
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact
of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 1307–1320.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training,29, 199–218.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology,48,
485–519.
829G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers' career success. Academy of Management Journal,42, 641–651.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,13, 523–544.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly,17, 146–162.
Kerr, W. A., & Speroff, B. J. (1951). The empathy test. Chicago: Psychometric Affiliates.
Kim, B. S. K., Ng, G. F., & Ahn, A. J. (2005). Effects of client expectati on for counseling success, client –counselor worldview match, and client adherence to Asian and
European American cultural values on counseling process with Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology,52,67–76.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural
values framework. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 285–320.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,21, 221–234.
Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting crosscultural training performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and
dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 476–489.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). BENCHMARKS®: A manual and trainer's guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lombardo, M. M., McCauley, C. D., McDonald-Mann, D., & Leslie, J. B. (1999). BENCHMARKS® developmental reference points. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2008). Can a manager have a life and a career? International and multisource perspectives on work-life balance and career
advancement potential. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 789–805.
Marcoulides, G. A., Yavas, B. F., Bilgin, Z., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Reconciling culturalist and rationalist approaches: Leadership in the United States and Turkey.
Thunderbird International Business Review (1986–1998),40, 563–683.
McCauley, C., & Lombardo, M. (1990). BENCHMARKS®: An instrument for diagnosing managerial strengths and weaknesses. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.),
Measures of leadership (pp. 535–545). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Mendez-Russell, A. (2001). Diversity leadership. Executive Excellence,18, 16.
Mete, S. (2007). The empathic tendencies and skills of nursing students. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal,35, 1181–1188.
Morris, T., & Pavett, C. M. (1992). Management style and productivity in two cultures. Journal of International Business Studies,23, 169–179.
Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture + intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group and Organization Management,31,4–19.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,58,
367–408.
Ostroff, C., Atwater, L. E., & Feinberg, B. J. (2004). Understanding self-other agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel
Psychology,57, 333–375.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin,128,3–72.
Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors?: A focus on the GLOBE national
culture scheme. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,5, 123–138.
Pasa, S. F. (2000). Leadership in a high power distance and collectivist culture. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,21, 414–425.
Peterson, B. (2004). Cultural intelligence: A guide to working with people from other cultures. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business
Studies,30, 763–779.
Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. -H., Yu, C. -S., Chan, K. A., et al. (2002). A model of emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies: A
study in seven countries. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,10, 302–326.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics ,
63, 345–359.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology,21,95–103.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership
behavior. Academy of Management Journal,48, 845–858.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,9, 185–211.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications,Vol. 18. (pp. 85–119)Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shahin, A. I., & Wright, P. L. (2004). Leadership in the context of culture: An Egyptian perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,25, 499–511.
Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Koczwara, A., & Ferguson, E. (2007). “Trust me…”: Psychological and behavioral predictors of perceived physician empathy. Journal of
Applied Psychology,92, 519–527.
Skinner, C., & Spurgeon, P. (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health leadership: A study of empathy, leadership behavior and outcome
effectiveness. Health Services Management Research,18,1–12.
Smith, P. B. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 915–921.
Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2002). Wisdom: A culturally inclusive developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development,26, 269–277.
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of mindfulness. Group and Organization Management,36,78–99.
Tobolski, F. P., & Kerr, W. A. (1952). Predictive value of the empathy test in automobile salesmanship. Journal of Applied Psychology,36, 310–311.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group and Organization Management,31,20–26.
Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1991). Feedback to managers: Vol 1. A guide to evaluating multi-rater feedback instruments. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader
effectiveness. Human Resource Management,32(2–3), 249–263.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 557–574.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S.,& Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.
Journal of Management,34,89–126.
Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly,
13, 505–522.
Wright, R. W., & Ricks, D. A. (1994). Trends in international business research 25 years later. Journal of International Business Studies,25, 687–701.
Yan, J., & Hunt, J. G. (2005). A cross cultural perspective on perceived leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,5,49–66.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
830 G. Sadri et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 818–830
