| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Harzing, Anne-Wil, et al.
(författare)
-
Rating versus ranking : What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research?
- 2009
-
Ingår i: International Business Review. - : Elsevier BV. - 0969-5931 .- 1873-6149. ; 18:4, s. 417-432
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We propose solutions to two recurring problems in cross-national research: response style differences and language bias. In order to do so, we conduct a methodological comparison of two different response formats-rating and ranking. For rating, we assess the effect of changing the commonly used 5-point Likert scales to 7-point Likert scales. For ranking, we evaluate the validity of presenting respondents with short scenarios for which they need to rank their top 3 solutions. Our results - based on two studies of 1965 undergraduate and 1714 MBA students in 16 different countries - confirm our hypotheses that both solutions reduce response and language bias, but show that ranking generally is a superior solution. These findings allow researchers to have greater confidence in the validity of cross-national differences if these response formats are used, instead of the more traditional 5-point Likert scales. In addition, our findings have several practical implications for multinational corporations, relating to issues such as selection interviews, performance appraisals, and cross-cultural training.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Zander, Lena, et al.
(författare)
-
Action Intent : Getting closer to leadership behaviour in 22 countries.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Research Handbook of Global Leadership. - Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 978 1 78254 534 7 - 978 1 78254 535 4 ; , s. 54-75
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The field of cross-cultural leadership has seen a boom in empirical research over the last few decades, yet there are still few large-scale studies that seek explanations for leadership behavior. Earlier research has provided knowledge and awareness about differences and similarities in leadership attitudes, ideals, perceptions and preferences across countries and cultures, but to predict leadership behavior remains difficult. In this chapter, leader’s ‘action intent’ is proposed as a ‘close-to-action’ concept in contrast to the more ‘far-from-action’ concepts used in earlier leadership research. Importantly, for ‘close-to-action’ concepts to be able to provide better predictions these need to provide contextual and situational cues. In our study, carried out in 22 countries, respondents have ranked their preferred action alternative for six specific leadership scenarios. We find inter-country and intra-country variation in action intent for each scenario and meaningful correlations with culturally endorsed leadership ideals. Drawing on our empirical illustration we provide implications from our findings for global leadership. And although there are no simple answers as to how to predict leadership behavior, we posit that using ‘action intent’ as a leadership measure will generate a better understanding and provide stronger predictions of leader behavior globally.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Zander, Lena, et al.
(författare)
-
Standardization versus Contextualization : A study of language and leadership across 17 countries
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of world business (Print). - : Elsevier. - 1090-9516 .- 1878-5573. ; 46:3, s. 296-304
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- With multinational corporations increasingly adopting English as a corporate language, the issue of language management and the pros and cons of language standardization have been widely debated in the literature. Our 17-country study considers whether the use of English as a common corporate language causes difficulties. We empirically examine whether managerial reactions to specific leadership scenario-based situations change as a consequence of the language they use. Our results show that the choice of language (native or English) does not matter much for the studied leadership scenarios. Instead, leadership decisions and reactions depend more on cultural and situational context.
|
|
