Intercultural communication competence and leadership: a new and more

comprehensive research approach for the multicultural settings of the global economy
Krzysztof Dembek
Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, Australia
Email: cdembek@swin.edu.au

Preferred Stream:

Profile:

Stream 11, 3

Krzysztof Dembek is a doctoral candidate at Swinburne University of Technology.

His research interests include leadership, intercultural communication,
internationalization of companies and corporate entrepreneurship. He teaches in
management and international business courses.

Intercultural communication competence and leadership: a new and more

comprehensive research approach for the multicultural settings of the global economy
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to indicate the existence of a relationship between

intercultural communication competence and leadership. In order to do this the
article presents conclusions from a wider literature review in the fields of
intercultural communication and leadership. It identifies a gap in the existing
literature as no studies relating intercultural communication competence and
leadership were found. Five common elements in the two concepts are identified and
discussed suggesting the existence of a link. Further, addressing the problems and
suggestions identified in the literature a new approach for studying leadership in
diverse and multicultural business settings is proposed. This opens up wide
possibilities for future research.

Keywords: leadership, communication, diversity in organisations, globalisation, multiculturalism and

work
INTRODUCTION
Todays business environment is characterized by intensive intercultural interactions where companies
are involved in a global network with strong economic interdependencies (House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta 2004; Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel 2007). As a result, an increasing amount of
business activity is taking place on the multinational scene, and even domestic working environments
are becoming more multicultural (Javidan & House 2002; Jokinen 2005; Samovar & Porter 2004;
Samovar et al. 2007; Thomas 2001; Wong, Wong, & Heng 2007). In these settings it has recently been
proved that companies in many countries experience problems with leadership (Gallup 2006; Jokinen
2005; Sarros & Cooper 2006). A worldwide leadership study has found that thirty eight per cent of
people in more than sixty studied countries remain critical of business leaders (Gallup 2006). They are
perceived as not capable and competent, unethical and dishonest (Gallup 2006). Others have reported
lack of managers skilled enough to lead businesses in the global economy (Javidan & House 2002;
Jokinen 2005; Manning 2003).
The literature recognizes the crucial role of leadership in the multicultural environment of global
business (House et al. 2004; Karpin 1995; Sinclair & Wilson 2002). It also argues that new skills are
required from todays leaders working in the global economy, because leadership itself became more
multicultural (Sinclair & Wilson 2002) and it could be now defined as influence across national and
cultural boundaries (Mobley & Dorfman 2003: xiii). Further, it was argued that leadership was
enacted through communication (Barge 1994: 21) and communication competence was a
prerequisite for effective leadership (Flauto 1999). Moreover, in the highly diverse global

environment, communication competence should become intercultural because people should be able
to perceive things from the perspective of culturally different others (Chen & Starosta 1996).
Therefore, leaders should develop their intercultural communication competence, which can be
broadly defined as involving knowledge, motivation and skills to interact effectively and
appropriately with members of different cultures (Wiseman 2003: 192).
However, existing literature on leadership did not reveal the basis for effective leadership, possibly
because of the excessively narrow focus of the studies (Yukl 2002, 2006). More recent research on
leadership among various cultures has resulted in different opinions about what is required from global
leaders in order to assist them in achieving success (Jokinen 2005). On the other hand, it has been
argued that intercultural communication literature does not focus enough on business context (Varner
2000). Scholars investigating intercultural communication competence have developed numerous
models that vary substantially between each other and lack empirical support. Moreover, this literature
study found no research on intercultural communication competence and leadership. Further,
communication issues in a vast number of leadership theories and models seem to be taken for granted
and not directly addressed (Barge 1994; Gardner & Terry 1996).
Addressing the existing problems and building on the suggestions of a relationship between
communication competence and leadership (Flauto 1999; Rouhiainen 2005) as well as on the
argument that in the global environment, communication competence should be intercultural (Chen
2005; Chen & Starosta 1996; Samovar & Porter 2004; Samovar et al. 2007), this article presents
conclusions from a wider literature review. It aims to indicate the existence of relationships between
leadership and intercultural communication competence. In order to do this certain common elements
of both concepts are presented. Finally, a broader and more comprehensive approach of research is
suggested. One that combines the efforts of two until now rather separated fields.
Given the claim of too narrow focus of leadership studies and the suggestion that in order to be
effective leadership should be regarded at the same level of complexity as the environment in which it
functions (Barge 1994; Yukl 2002, 2006), the idea of combining two fields recognized as crucially
important for the functioning of businesses in multicultural, diverse settings (House et al. 2004;
Samovar et al. 2007; Sinclair & Wilson 2002) generates expectations for advances in investigating the

complex phenomenon of effective leadership in globally involved businesses. Findings from this
widely focused research could thus also assist in creating new training programs to develop managers
with skills that are reported to be in scarcity.
The purpose of the present article, as mentioned before, is just to indicate the existence of relationships
between intercultural communication competence and leadership. However, it opens wide possibilities
for future research. Even the investigation of the links between the concepts only will probably require
a substantial amount of work by a number of academics. Furthermore, to be used in global settings, the
findings will have to be proved valid in number of countries and industries.
In order to fulfil the purpose and suggest a new approach for research, this article presents the
conclusions from the review of existing literatures on leadership and intercultural communication. It
starts with the showing some existing assumptions about communication in general that can be
observed in leadership theories and its recent models. It also reports on a number of studies on both
communication and leadership. In doing so it reveals gaps in the existing literature. Further, it presents
a number of models of intercultural communication competence and provides a comparative analysis
indicating some shared elements. Following, the same elements are discovered in leadership research.
Finally, it concludes by indicating the existence of relationships between the two concepts in question
and it suggests a new comprehensive approach to the study of leadership in diverse, multicultural
business settings.
COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP IN THE EXISTING LITERATURE
Each group of leadership theories seems to enclose different assumptions about communication (Barge
1994; Gardner & Terry 1996). For example, it could be stated that in trait theory the role of
communication is limited to certain communicative abilities or traits, such as verbal fluency or
talkativeness (Barge 1994). In behavioural theories communication can be perceived as one of the
behavioural tools and as the effect of using different communication styles or behaviours (Gardner &
Terry 1996). Later, in transformational leadership it seems to be assumed that leading an organization
through change, empowering people, convincingly presenting a vision in a dynamic environment
requires acknowledgement of numerous factors and appropriate adjustment of communication which
will impact the acceptance of change and thus leaders success (Barge 1994; Gardner & Terry 1996).

The link between leadership and communication appears more pronounced in recently developed
leadership models. Hede (2001) in his integrated leadership model includes communication as one of
the basic dimensions of leadership behaviour. The flexible leadership model developed by Yukl and
Lepsinger (2004) underline that effective communication across the whole organization is a common
denominator for understanding and meeting the different types of leadership challenges (Yukl &
Lepsinger 2004: 223). However, even the last models are still general and superficial about the
relationship between leadership and communication. They also do not address the role of competent
communication in multicultural settings.
Communication and leadership can also be found as subject of a number of studies approached from
various perspectives. Examples include studies conducted by Schultz (1980) on communication
behaviours as predictors of leader emergence, Penley and colleagues (1991) who examined
relationship between managers performance and levels of communication skills. More recently,
Gaddis, Connelly and Mumford (2004) studied the impact of leader affect on subordinates when
communicating negative feedback and Clifton (2006) showed how conversation analysis can help in
improving leadership and communication skills.
Some authors also investigated different aspects of communication in relation to leadership in crosscultural settings. For example, Vaught and Abraham (1992) found the interpersonal communication
capabilities of Indian managers being very similar to those from the US. However, the overall scores
in both countries were only low to average. Zander (2005) concluded, after studying employees in 16
countries, that using similar or the same language in different countries did not mean people would
have similar preferences for leadership-related communication styles.
Relationship between communication competence and leadership has been found (Flauto 1999;
Rouhiainen 2005). Rouhiainen (2005) has recently studied communication competence of leaders in
knowledge based organizations. However, the review of literature reveals a scarcity of studies on the
link. It thus could be concluded that while the importance of competent communication for leadership
seems obvious, even the relationship between communication in general and leadership is not actually
addressed. It therefore seems that this link has been assumed rather than proved or deeply investigated
in the literature (Flauto 1999).

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that competent leadership has been argued to stem from
communication competence of the leaders (Barge 1994; Flauto 1999). Therefore, communication
competence becomes a prerequisite for competent leadership (Flauto 1999). Moreover, competent
communication in todays global and diverse societies needs also to be intercultural (Chen 2005; Chen
& Starosta 1996; Samovar et al. 2007). In this literature review no studies were found on intercultural
communication competence and leadership. In addition, considering recently reported global problems
with leadership (Gallup 2006; Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House 2006) on one hand and
arguments about the importance of intercultural communication competence on the other (Chen 2005;
House et al. 2004; Saee 2006; Samovar et al. 2007), it appears to be necessary to fill the gap and
investigate possible relationships between the two concepts.
MODELS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
Numerous models of intercultural communication competence have been developed in the literature.
Those presented in the present article do not form the complete list. Rather the most recent examples
have been selected given the changes mentioned at the beginning. Rubens study and Chens early
models are provided to illustrate the path of development.
Seven basic elements
In the early study Ruben (1976) discovered seven basic behavioural elements contributing to
communicating competently inter-culturally, namely, display of respect, interaction posture (related to
avoiding valuations and judgments when responding to others), orientation to knowledge (involving
the consciousness about individual perspectives), empathy, self-oriented role behaviour (seen as
flexibility in functional task related roles in finding balance with roles in positive relationshipbuilding), interaction management (displayed in driving discussion or interaction on the basis of
adequate estimation of others necessities), and tolerance for ambiguity.
Development of Chens models
Chen (1989; 1992) proved the seven Rubens elements to be significantly correlated and used them in
a review of intercultural communication competence research where four main dimensions of the
concept were identified namely, personal attributes, communication skills, psychological adaptation
and cultural awareness. Personal attributes indicate ones knowledge about oneself including positive

self concept and self awareness. Communication skills indicate ones verbal and nonverbal behaviours
where the need for flexibility and empathy is acknowledged. Psychological adaptation relates to
managing frustration, stress, alienation and ambiguity in order to adjust to a new environment. Finally,
cultural awareness assists in understanding social values, customs, norms and systems of interacting
cultures. Exploring adaptation of students from different countries to American culture, the author
found significant interrelationships between some of the dimensions. However, the research did not
considered multicultural interactions among the subjects. The author concluded that studies of
intercultural communication competence should consider cognitive, affective, self-awareness and
cultural awareness approaches (Chen 1992).
Three processes model
Chens (1992) suggestions were followed in the next model where affective (intercultural sensitivity),
cognitive (intercultural awareness) and behavioural (intercultural adroitness) processes were argued to
be inseparable parts of the holistic image of intercultural communication competence (Chen &
Starosta 1996). Affective element concentrates on feelings and emotions, building intercultural
sensitivity. Four personal attributes are required for this purpose according to the authors, namely, self
concept, open mindedness, non judgmental attitude, and social relaxation. The cognitive element is
responsible for understanding interacting cultures and therefore assists in reducing situational
ambiguity and uncertainty. The behavioural element or intercultural adroitness is the ability to get the
job done and attain communication goals in intercultural interactions (Chen & Starosta 1996: 367).
The authors mentioned, among others, flexibility and empathy as behaviours that assist in reaching
cultural adroitness.
Global communication competence
More recently the above model has been further modified to form a global communication competence
model (Chen 2005). The author does not comment on the substitution on the term intercultural by the
term global in the name of the model. However, both notions are used together throughout its
explanation, which could indicate that they can be employed interchangeably. A global mindset forms
the foundations of the new model. It is interrelated with three other components, namely, unfolding the
self, mapping the culture, and aligning the interaction. The global mindset is responsible for ones

broad perspective of the world, and therefore requires openness and flexibility. Unfolding the self is
related to personal improvement that requires combining scientific, philosophical and religious
perspectives on viewing the world and means ceaselessly purifying oneself, continuous learning,
cultivating sensitivity, develop creativity, and fostering empathy (Chen 2005: 8). Mapping the culture
appears as passive and active understanding of interacting cultures. It thus proves ones cultural
awareness that allows perceiving things from another cultures perspective. Finally, aligning the
interaction requires intercultural adroitness (and therefore, empathy and flexibility) and integrates
mental, affective and cognitive abilities allowing for effective and appropriate action during
intercultural encounter.
Spitzbergs assumptions about intercultural communication competence
A different approach to intercultural communication competence is presented by Spitzberg. The
model portrays the process of dyadic interaction as a function of two individuals motivation to
communicate, knowledge of communication in that context, and skills in implementing their
motivation and knowledge (Spitzberg 2000: 376). The model is composed of a series of assumptions
divided into three levels of analysis of individual, episodic and relational systems. Individual level is
related to ones characteristics required in normative social setting. The author suggests here a positive
relationship between motivation, knowledge and skills of the interactants on one side and
communicative competence on the other. An episodic system describes ones features that increase
his/her competence in another persons perception during a given episode of interaction. More
specifically, a higher communicative status will positively influence other persons impression of
ones competence. Also if one fulfils the other partys expectations it is likely to influence his/her
perceived image of competence. Therefore, fulfilment of co-actors positive and normative violation of
negative expectancies is expected to increase the perceived competence. The relational system
presents more universal requirements needed across various relationships in order to raise the level of
communicative quality, referred to as relational competence. The author suggests a positive
relationship between this competence on one side and mutual fulfilment of autonomy and intimacy
needs, mutual attraction, mutual trust, access to social support and relational network integration on
the other.

The model needs to be considered having in mind two important factors. First of all, the predicted
relationships are relative. Therefore, there is always a turning point and excess of any of elements can
have reverse effect on communication competence. Secondly, communication competence depends on
all the interactants and therefore all of them should take the responsibility for the outcomes of the
encounter.
Process model of intercultural communication competence
Hajek and Giles (2003) argued that intercultural communication competence should be perceived as a
combination of skills, traits and knowledge of cultural history of interacting cultures. The authors
argue that the type of interactants, their cognitive preparedness (regarded as community ideology and
acculturation orientation, combined with Hofstedes cultural dimensions), and cultural orientations
(related to self-monitoring of ones openness to changes) constitute the basis for the processes
explained in the model. These variables affect the learning and development process of the
interactants. They are argued to impact communication management of people in a cumulative effect
resulting in various possible forms of competent behaviour including dealing effectively with a
psychological stress, establishing personal relations, learning new and unlearning old cultural habits or
use of appropriate langue, and increased levels of empathy and flexibility. It is to be acknowledged
that the described process is argued to be bidirectional and that the outcomes could then also have the
effect on further communication management or ones learning and development.
Culture general model of intercultural communication competence
Arasaratnam (2004) proposed a culture general model of intercultural communication competence
based on the literature and both qualitative and quantitative studies of perception of an interculturally
competent communicator from other culture, among student of an US university originated from
fifteen countries. Five variables, namely, motivation (interest in getting to know people from other
cultures), experience (in intercultural events or formal training in intercultural communication),
empathy, global attitude (openness to various cultural perspectives) and ability to listen and pay
attention, were identified as the components of the model (Arasaratnam 2004). The model is being
further empirically tested. However, to date, the studies have only been conducted in university
settings (Arasaratnam 2006).

Model of excellence in intercultural communication competence

Similar argument to Spitzbergs (2000) about the responsibility for the interaction is found in Saees
(2006) model of excellence in intercultural communication competence. Supporting the research with
previous literature and qualitative research among twelve managers from the Australian hospitality
industry, the author isolates factors that contribute to intercultural communication competence.
Three basic steps can be noticed in the model. In order to reach intercultural communication
competence it is necessary firstly to understand the theoretical foundations. Secondly, various abilities
need to be developed aiming for establishing meaningful interpersonal relationships, dialog
conducting as well as coping with psychological stress. Finally, there is a need for behavioural
dimensions such as respect, empathy, openness, nonjudgementalness, tolerance of ambiguity, ability to
perform role behaviours and interaction management as well as adaptability, trust, listening skills,
equity/equal treatment of all individuals in intercultural context, education, patience, and competence
in a second language.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE MODELS COMPARISON
The above models present a variety of approaches, theoretical perspectives or level of analysis, from
purely behavioural (Ruben 1976) approach through focus on processes (Chen & Starosta 1996; Hajek
& Giles 2003) to dyadic interaction (Spitzberg 2000). Substantial differences can also be seen in
theoretical fundaments of the models. Hajek and Giles (2003) use communication enhancement of
aging and communication predicament of aging theories to build up their model. Saee (2006) uses
what one could call a multi-theory perspective building upon, among others, psychological adaptation
theories, uncertainty reduction or general systems theory. Moreover, the analytical approach varies
across the models from individual (self reported) (Saee 2006), individual (other reported)
(Arasaratnam 2004) to multiple level (Spitzberg 2000). Support could thus be found for the opinion
that there is a tendency to adopt very different starting points and perspectives in the studies which
elevate the level of difficulty in combining their outcomes (Bradford, Allen, & Beisser 2000; Koester,
Wiseman, & Sanders 1993).
It is also to be noted that the majority of the models lack sound empirical support. Only two of them
(Arasaratnam 2004; Saee 2006) were developed on the basis of both literature and empirical study,

10

and only one has been validated by empirical study (Arasaratnam 2004, 2006; Arasaratnam & Doerfel
2005). Asaratnams model is probably also the only one tested among representatives of more than
two cultures (Arasaratnam & Doerfel 2005). Nevertheless, the study was conducted exclusively in one
country and in the context of university students. This fact could also be seen as a limitation for the
universality of the model as communication competence was argued to differ depending on the context
(Samovar & Porter 2004; Samovar et al. 2007). One could also find support for Varners (2000)
argument about insufficient focus on business in intercultural communication literature as the majority
of studies are conducted in university settings.
However, there are certain common elements that are shared among the models. Empathy appears as
one of them. It is one of the basic Rubens (1976) elements; it appears as part of necessary
communication skills (Chen 1989, 1992) or behavioural adroitness (Chen & Starosta 1996), desired
communicative outcomes (Hajek & Giles 2003), one of the main variables (Arasaratnam 2004),
personal improvement (Chen 2005), or a desired behavioural dimensions (Saee 2006). Similarly
flexibility, openness, trust, and tolerance for ambiguity can each be noticed as components of several
models simultaneously. The above mentioned shared elements do not form an exhaustive list.
However, the aim of this article is not to produce such a list but to indicate the existence of common
elements between intercultural communication competence and leadership.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE ELEMENTS AND LEADERSHIP
STUDIES
The same elements that are shared among various intercultural communication competence models are
also related to leadership in existing studies. Empathy, openness, role flexibility and tolerance of
ambiguity were already perceived as desired features of managers working in cultures different from
their own twenty years ago (Harris & Moran 1987).
Empathy
More recently, empathy was found to be one of the desired mental characteristics of global leader
(Jokinen 2005) and one of the key competencies for leaders working within culturally diverse teams
(Iles & Hayers 1997). Yukl (2002) recognized empathy to be necessary for adjusting influence
strategy to different people. It was also found to be one of the routes leading to the recognition of an

11

individual as a leader (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth 2002). Other researchers argued for empathy as
one of the characteristics of transformational leaders (Ashkanasy & Tse 2000; Gardner & Stough
2002).
Trust
Building trust was also advocated for as one of the requisites of transformational leadership and its
importance recognized by various authors (Casimir, Waldman, Bartram, & Yang 2006; Connell,
Cross, & Parry 2002; Ferres, Travaglione, & Connell 2002; Gillespie & Mann 2004; Rubin, Munz, &
Bommer 2005). Also a strong association was found between trust and a leader effectiveness
(Gillespie & Mann 2004). Furthermore, building trust both inside and outside of the organization
appears as a must for leaders who want to develop in their companies the strategic flexibility required
in the competitive, global business environment (Hitt, Keats, & Yucel 2003).
Openness
Openness to new perspectives was found to be among the key competencies needed for cross-cultural
leaders managing diversity in the organization (Manning 2003). Transformational leaders also were
argued to be intellectually open (Bass 1985; Kouzes & Posner 1987). Various researchers proved
openness to be present among successful international managers (Black & Gregersen 1999; Sinclair &
Wilson 2002). Black and Gregersen (1999) argued that openness was composed of two elements,
namely cosmopolitan orientation that allows one to remain open to others values and acts, and
cultural flexibility that implies willingness to interact with other cultures.
Flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity
Flexibility appears to constitute one of the most crucial factors in todays leadership (Barge 1994;
Caligiuri & Di Santo 2001; Sinclair & Wilson 2002; Yukl & Lepsinger 2004) in various ways from
adjusting the performed style (Hede 2001) to flexibility in strategic leading of the whole organization
(Hitt et al. 2003). Flexibility was also found to be indispensable for work and the successful leading of
multicultural teams (Iles & Hayers 1997). Authors of the Globe project argued it was needed, together
with tolerance for ambiguity, for success of global leaders (Javidan et al. 2006; Javidan & House
2002). Tolerance of ambiguity is required especially in order to cope with the stressful situations
created in intercultural interactions (Javidan et al. 2006; Sinclair & Wilson 2002).

12

The elements discussed above are only an indication of existing relationships between the concepts.
The shared field seems to be much broader. It includes, for example, self awareness, identified as one
of the core competencies of global leadership (Jokinen 2005), and one of two main results of authentic
leadership, a new root concept underlying all positive forms of leadership (Avolio & Gardner 2005;
Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, & Luthans 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa 2005).
Moreover, on the conceptual level competence in both intercultural communication competence and
leadership were defined in terms of effectiveness and appropriateness (Barge 1994; Wiseman 2003).
Both fields also share the issue of cultural and contextual universality which remains a subject of
ongoing discussion (Arasaratnam 2004; Arasaratnam & Doerfel 2005; Bass & Riggio 2006; Parry
2001; Parry & Sarros 1994; Yukl 2006).
CONCLUSION
In order to meet the aim of the article conclusions from leadership and intercultural communication
literature review has been reported. Findings have indicated the lack of studies relating communication
and intercultural communication competence. Links to communication in existing leadership theories
and models have also been illustrated and found insufficiently expressed. Addressing the gap in the
literature, five elements forming the intercultural communication competence models have been found
present in leadership studies. A conceptual similarity has also been pointed out. The existence of
relationships between intercultural communication competence and leadership is suggested.
Considering the revealed gap in the literature as well as the suggestions that leadership has been to
narrowly focused, it is proposed to investigate possible relationships between leadership and
intercultural communication competence in future research. Moreover, it is proposed to approach
leading in diverse, multicultural business settings more comprehensively through the combination of
the two concepts. This could also assist in advancing investigations of successful global leadership by
broadening the focus of research. Further, it could possibly allow for development of comprehensive
programs for leaders involved in multicultural interactions, the need for which seems proved (Gallup
2006; Javidan et al. 2006).

13

REFERENCES

Arasaratnam LA (2004) Intercultural communication competence: development and

empirical validation of a new model, Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Arasaratnam LA (2006) Further testing of a new model of intercultural communication
competence, Communication Research Reports 23(2): 93-99.
Arasaratnam LA & Doerfel ML (2005) Intercultural communication competence: identifying
key components from multicultural perspectives, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 29(??): 137-163.
Ashkanasy NM & Tse B (2000) Transformational leadership as management of emotion: a
conceptual review, in Ashkanasy NM, Hartel CEJ & Zerbe WJ (Eds.) Emotions in the
workplace: research, theory and practice, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Avolio BJ & Gardner WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315-338.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO & Luthans FM, Douglas 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.
Barge KJ (1994) Leadership communication skills for organizations and groups, St. Martin'
s
Press, New York.
Bass BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations, The Free Press, New
York.
Bass BM & Riggio RE (2006) Transformational leadership (2nd ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Black JS & Gregersen HB (1999) he right way to manage expats, Harvard Business Review
77(2): 52-59.
Bradford L, Allen M & Beisser KR (2000) Meta-analysis of intercultural communication
competence research, World Communication 29(1): 28-51.
Caligiuri P & Di Santo V (2001) Global competence: what is it, and how can it be developed
through global assignments?, Human Resource Planning 24(3): 27-35.
Casimir G, Waldman DA, Bartram T & Yang S (2006) Trust and the relationship between
leadership and follower performance: opening the black box in Australia and China,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 12(3): 68-84.
Chen G-M (1989) Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication
competence, Communication Quarterly 37(2): 118-133.
Chen G-M (1992) A test of intercultural communication competence, Intercultural
Communication Studies 62(2).
Chen G-M (2005) A model of global communication competence, China Media Research
1(1): 3-11.
Chen G-M & Starosta WJ (1996) Intercultural communication competence: a synthesis, in
Burleson BR & Kunkel AW (Eds.) Communication yearbook 19, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Clifton J (2006) A conversation analytical approach to business communication: the case of
leadership, Journal of Business Communication 43(3): 202-219.
Connell J, Cross B & Parry KW (2002) Leadership in the 21st century: where is it leading
us?, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 5(2): 139-149.
Ferres N, Travaglione A & Connell J (2002) Trust: a precursor to the potential mediating
effect of transformational leadership?, International Journal of Organisational
Behaviour 5(8): 242-263.

14

Flauto FJ (1999) Walking the talk: the relationship between leadership and communication
competence, The Journal of Leadership Studies 6(1/2): 86-97.
Gaddis B, Connelly S & Mumford MD (2004) Failure feedback as an affective event:
influences of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance, The Leadership
Quarterly 15: 663-686.
Gallup I (2006) Voice of the people, London: Gallup International Association
Gardner JM & Terry DJ (1996) Communication, leadership and organisational change. Some
conceptual links and practical implications, in Parry KW (Ed.) Leadership research
and practice: emerging themes and new challenges, Pitman, South Melbourne.
Gardner L & Stough C (2002) Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers, Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal 23(2): 68-78.
Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, May DR & Walumbwa FO (2005) "Can you see the real
me". A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development, The
Leadership Quarterly 16: 343-372.
Gillespie NA & Mann L (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: the building
blocks of trust, Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(6): 588-607.
Hajek C & Giles H (2003) New directions in intercultural communication competence: the
process model, in Greene JO & Burleson BR (Eds.) Handbook of communication and
social interaction skills, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Harris PR & Moran RT (1987) Managing cultural differences (2nd ed.), Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, TX.
Hede A (2001) Integrated leadership: multiple styles for maximal effectiveness, in Parry KW
(Ed.) Leadership in the Antipodes: findings, implications and a leader profile pp. 621, Institute of Policy Studies [and] Centre for the Study of Leadership, Wellington,
N.Z.
Hitt MA, Keats BW & Yucel E (2003) Strategic leadership in global business organizations:
building trust and social capital, in Mobley WH & Dorfman PW (Eds.) Advances in
global leadership, JAI An imprint of Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW & Gupta V (Eds) (2004) Culture, leadership,
and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies, Sage Publications, Inc.,
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
Iles P & Hayers PK (1997) Managing diversity in transnational project teams. A tentative
model and case study, Journal of Managerial Psychology 12(2): 95-117.
Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Sully de Luque M & House RJ (2006) In the eye of the beholder:
cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE, Academy of Management
Perspectives: 67-90.
Javidan M & House RJ (2002) Leadership and cultures around the world: findings from
GLOBE. An introduction to the special issue, Journal of World Business 37: 1-2.
Jokinen T (2005) Global leadership competencies: a review and discussion, Journal of
European industrial training 29(3): 199-216.
Karpin D (1995) Report of the industry task force on leadership and management skills,
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Kellett JB, Humphrey RH & Sleeth RG (2002) Empathy and complex task performance: two
routes to leadership The Leadership Quarterly 13(5): 523-544.
Koester J, Wiseman RL & Sanders JA (1993) Multiple perspectives of intercultural
communication competence, in Wiseman RL & Koester J (Eds.) Intercultural
communication competence, pp. 3-15, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Kouzes JM & Posner BZ (1987) The leadership challenge: how to get extraordinary things
done in organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

15

Manning TT (2003) Leadership across cultures: attachment style influences, Journal of

Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(3): 20-30.
Mobley WH & Dorfman PW (Eds) (2003) Advances in global leadership, JAI An imprint of
Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
Parry KW (2001) Conclusions, implications and a leader profile, in Parry KW (Ed.)
Leadership in the Antipodes: findings, implications and a leader profile, Institute of
Policy Studies [and] Centre for the Study of Leadership, Wellington, N.Z.
Parry KW & Sarros JC (1994) Transformational leadership in Australia: how different from
the United States?, Management papers: a working paper series 4(2).
Penley LE, Alexander ER, Jernigan IE & Henwood CI (1991) Communication abilities of
managers: the relationship to performance, Journal of Management 17(1): 57-76.
Rouhiainen M (2005) The communication competence of leaders in a knowledge-based
organization, Frontiers of E-business Research 1-2: 625-636.
Ruben BD (1976) Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation, Group
and Organization Studies 1: 334-354.
Rubin RS, Munz DC & Bommer WH (2005) Leading from within: the effects of emotion
recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior, Academy of
Management Journal 48(5): 845-858.
Saee J (2006) Managerial competence within the hospitality and tourism service industries :
global cultural contextual analysis Routledge, New York
Samovar LA & Porter RE (2004) Communication between cultures (5th ed.), Thomson
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Samovar LA, Porter RE & McDaniel ER (2007) Communication between cultures (6th ed.),
Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Sarros JC & Cooper B (2006) building character: a leadership essential, Journal of Business
and Psychology 21(1): 1-22.
Schultz B (1980) Communicative correlates of perceived leaders, Small Group Behavior
11(2): 175-191.
Sinclair A & Wilson V (2002) New faces of leadership, Melbourne University Press, Carlton
South.
Spitzberg BH (2000) A model of intercultural communication competence, in Samovar LA &
Porter RE (Eds.) Intercultural communication: a reader, 9th ed., Wadsworth,
Belmont.
Thomas DC (2001) Leadership across cultures: a New Zealand perspective, in Parry KW
(Ed.) Leadership in the Antipodes, Institute of Policy Studies [and] Centre for the
Study of Leadership, Wellington, N.Z.
Varner II (2000) The theoretical foundation for intercultural business communication: a
conceptual model, The Journal of Business Communication 37(1): 39-57.
Vaught BC & Abraham Y (1992) Cultural diversity and interpersonal communication skills: a
study of Indian managers, Leadership and Organization Development Journal 13(7):
26-31.
Wiseman RL (2003) Intercultural communication competence, in Gudykunst WB (Ed.)
Cross-cultural and intercultural communication, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks
London New Delhi.
Wong J, Wong PNK & Heng L (2007) An investigation of leadership styles and relationship
cultures of Chinese and expatriate managers in multinational construction companies
in Hong Kong, Construction Management and Economics 25: 95-106.
Yukl G & Lepsinger R (2004) Flexible leadership: creating value by balancing multiple
challenges and choices, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

16

Yukl GA (2002) Leadership in organizations (5th ed. ed.), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ
Yukl GA (2006) Leadership in organizations, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Zander L (2005) Communication and country clusters. A study of language and leadership
preferences, International Studies of Management and Organization 35(1): 83-103.

17