comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

Structure of Charismatic Leadership Dimensions
Ehrlich, Meindl and Viellieu (1990) proposed the following LBDQXII dimensions as
related to Charismatic leadership leading to extra effort on the part of subordinates. The
GLOBE study (House et al., 2005) proposed other components as comprising
Charismatic/Value-Based leadership. Inspection of the GLOBE dimensions indicates
that some of the dimensions represented as traits orthogonal to other traits actually seem
to be opposite poles of bi-polar dimensions, such as Humane-Oriented and Self-
Protective (Further pursuit of this possibility is beyond the scope of this project, and
must be investigated in a subsequent project). Some of the LBDQXII dimensions appear
to be highly related, such as Consideration and Integration.
In Figure 5.40 the relationships between Ehrlich et al.’s predictions and the results from
this study are inconsistent, with preferences indicated for oral communication and
transactional/task oriented behaviours. Then indications are not conclusive, with the
dimensions suggested by Ehrlich et al. not consistently highly ranked by either sample.
Figure 5.40. An Analysis of the Relationships amongst the LBDQXII Charisma
Dimensions
LBDQXII This Study:
Integration correlated 0.56.: Integration reflects to what degree
the manager maintains a closely-knit organisation; resolves intermember
conflicts.
Initiating Structure correlated 0.57: Initiation of Structure
measures to what degree the manager clearly defines own role,
and lets followers know what is expected.
Persuasiveness correlated 0.55 with charisma/extra effort:
Persuasiveness measures to what extent the manager uses oral
persuasion and argument effectively.
Predictive Accuracy correlated 0.58: Predictive Accuracy
measures to what extent the manager exhibits foresight and ability
to predict outcomes accurately.
Tolerance of Freedom correlated 0.54: Tolerance of Freedom
reflects to what extent the manager allows followers scope for
initiative, decision and action.
260
Highly preferred by both samples,
ranked 1 for NZ and 1 equal for GZ
Highly preferred by both samples
Relatively highly preferred by both
samples, higher for NZ sample
Middle range preference by either
sample
Not highly ranked by either sample,
low for GZ sample and mid-range
for NZ sample