The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Leadership in the
Leadership in the context context of culture
of culture
An Egyptian perspective
499
Amany I. Shahin
Department of Management, Helwan University School of Management, Received August 2003
Giza, Egypt Revised April 2004
Accepted May 2004
Peter L. Wright
Department of Occupational Psychology, Bradford University School of
Management, Bradford, UK
Keywords Leadership, Culture (sociology), Egypt, Banks, Transformational leadership
Abstract Most leadership theories are North American in origin. These theories may not be
appropriate to be applied on a worldwide basis, especially in cultures, which differ in significant
respects from the American culture. This study investigates the suitability of applying Bass and
Avolio’s transformational/transactional leadership model in a Middle Eastern country such as
Egypt. A questionnaire based on Bass and Avolio’s multifactor leadership questionnaire, with
additional questions which were believed to reflect Egyptian culture, was administered to managers
and subordinates in ten Egyptian investment banks. Usable responses were obtained from 70
managers and 173 subordinates. Factor analysis of the data revealed a factor structure, which
differed in significant respects from that found on the basis of research in the USA, providing
strong support for the argument that adjustment and modification of Bass and Avolio’s model of
leadership are required in different cultures.

Introduction
The study of leadership is deeply attached to culture. Both the leader’s actions and
followers’ responses inevitably reflect the forms of behaviour which are regarded as
legitimate and appropriate within their society. Owing to the crucial role played by
culture, cross-cultural leadership studies have caught the attention of many
researchers in the last 40 years. Nevertheless, most leadership theories are North
American in origin. These theories might not be appropriate to be applied on a
worldwide basis, especially in cultures, which differ significantly from the American
culture. Studies of leadership styles have revealed that there are not only differences in
the styles preferred by followers in different cultures, but the specific behaviours which
reflect these styles may vary from culture to culture (Smith and Peterson, 1988).
Cultural differences may also limit the universality of the new leadership paradigms,
such as the theory of transactional and transformation leadership introduced by Bass
(1985) and later revised by Bass and Avolio (1994). Bass (1996) stated that this theory
has some degree of universality, as it holds up considerable universal potential.
Although many studies investigated this theory in different cultures, relatively few The Leadership & Organization
studies have considered it in emerging nations. There is a lack of Development Journal
Vol. 25 No. 6, 2004
transformational/transactional leadership research in Egypt. The present study pp. 499-511
addresses this gap. The suitability of transformational/transactional leadership in q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
Egypt is examined. Differences between Egyptian and American approaches to DOI 10.1108/01437730410556743
LODJ leadership are identified and explanations of such differences are proposed, in terms of
the impact of Egyptian culture on leadership behaviour.
25,6
The new leadership approaches
House (1977) review rekindled interest in charismatic leadership. Subsequent research
and theorising has been concerned with issues such as the characteristics of
500 charismatic leaders, the circumstances under which charismatic leadership is likely to
arise and the effects of charismatic leadership on organisational performance and the
well-being of followers (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger, 1989; Conger and Kanungo,
1998; House and Shamir, 1993; Sashkin, 1988; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). An
alternative approach to inspirational leadership was developed by Burns (1978). Based
on the study of political leaders, Burns (1978) made the influential distinction between
transactional and transformational leadership. According to Burns, transactional
leadership occurs when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others
for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. Transformational leadership, on the
other hand, occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that
leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation.
The concepts of transformational and transactional leadership were later applied to
organisational leadership by Bass (1985). However, Bass took a different view from
Burns concerning the relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership. Whereas Burns saw transformational and transactional leadership as two
mutually exclusive forms of leadership, Bass argued that the same leader could exhibit
both patterns of leadership.
In the initial version of his theory, Bass (1985) identified two types of transactional
leadership (contingent reward and management-by-exception) and three forms of
transformational leadership (charisma, individualised consideration and intellectual
stimulation). This theory was later revised by Avolio et al. (1991) who identified four
aspects of transformational leadership, which they called the four Is. The concepts of
individualised consideration and inspirational motivation were retained, but the
concept of charisma was replaced by the concepts of idealised influence and
inspirational motivation. The theory was further modified by Bass and Avolio (1993),
who identified seven leadership factors based on a higher order factor analysis of the
earlier version of their multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). These seven factors
were categorised into active and passive categories. The active dimension included the
four Is of transformational leadership and contingent reward, whilst the passive
dimension consisted of management-by-exception and laissez-faire. However, Bass and
Avolio (1994) distinguished between active and passive forms of
management-by-exception, making eight factors in all. Definitions of these eight
factors are given in Table I.

The role of culture in the new leadership approaches

The influence of culture on the operations of companies working on a global basis can
be investigated at different levels of analysis. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1997) differentiated between three levels of culture. At the highest is the culture of a
national or regional society. The way in which attitudes are expressed within specific
organisation is described as a corporate or organisational culture. At a narrower level
there is the professional culture where people with certain functions will tend to share
certain professional and ethical orientations.
Transactional leadership
Contingent reward
Leaders assign or get agreement on what
needs to be done and promise rewards or
actually reward others in exchange for
satisfactorily carrying out the assignment
Active management-by-exception
Leaders actively monitor deviances from
standards, mistakes and errors in followers’
assignments and take corrective action
as necessary
Passive management-by-exception
Leaders wait passively for deviances,
mistakes and errors to occur and then take
corrective action
Non-leadership
Laissez-faire
The laissez-faire style is the avoidance or absence of leadership. As opposed to transactional
leadership, the laissez-faire style represents a nontransaction
Source: Bass and Avolio (1994)
Transformational leadership
Leadership in the
context of culture
Idealised influence
Leaders become role models for their followers. They
are admired, respected and trusted. They consider
the needs of others over their own personal needs,
share risks with followers, are consistent rather than 501
arbitrary, demonstrate high standards of ethical and
moral conduct and avoid using power for personal
gain
Inspirational motivation
Leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire
those around them by providing meaning and
challenge to their followers’ work
Intellectual stimulation
Leaders stimulate followers’ efforts to be innovative
and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing
problems, and approaching old situations in new
ways
Individualised consideration
Leaders treat each subordinate differently according
to his or her particular needs and capabilities
Table I.
Factors of transactional
and transformational
leadership

National culture could be considered the culture which differentiates one society from
another. According to Erez and Early (1993) members of the same culture are more
likely to interpret and evaluate situational events in a similar way than those from
different cultures. The national culture could be considered from a social perspective, a
historical perspective and an individual perspective. The social perspective considers
culture from a social point of view. Culture here is a feature of social life (Geertz, 1973).
The historical perspective refers to the values, which are inherited in the population of
a particular nation. The individual perspective takes a view of culture in which the
values and norms of individuals are highlighted. Triandis (1972) defined culture as
cultural group characteristics and considered it as a way of perceiving man-made parts
of its environment. Hofstede (1991) defined culture as the collective programming of
the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another. Hoecklin (1995)
and Tayeb (1996) had almost the same views as Hofstede.
Organisational culture refers to a set of assumptions or beliefs that are shared by
members of an organisation. Hofstede (1998) defined it as the collective programming
of the mind which distinguishes the members of one organisation from another.
Generally, it is not expected that the influence of organisational culture will be as
strong as that of national culture. Professional culture is narrower in scope than
organisational culture. Despite this it still has some degree of importance, and further
research is required in this particular area.
LODJ Various aspects of transformational and transactional leadership have been
25,6 investigated in cross-cultural studies. Yokochi (1989) found that contingent reward is
more implicit in Japan than in the US. The wide scale the Globe project (Den Hartog and
House, 1999) investigated transformational leadership in 64 nations. This project
identified attributes associated with charismatic/transformational leadership that are
universally endorsed as contributing to leadership. It was found that the most important
502 attributes, which were universally positively endorsed, were motive arouser, foresight,
encouraging, communicative, trustworthy, dynamic, positive, confidence builder and
motivational. Other cross-cultural studies of transformational leadership in different
cultures have been based on Bass’s MLQ. Translations have been made to Spanish,
French, Italian, German, Dutch, Arabic and Japanese (Bass, 1997). According to Bass
and Avolio (1994), the optimal leadership profile is one in which the leader displays the
four Is style most frequently, the contingent reward style somewhat less frequently,
followed in order of decreasing frequency by active management-by-exception, passive
management-by-exception and finally the laissez-faire style. However, for two reasons,
it cannot be assumed that this optimum profile is equally applicable in all cultures.
First, subordinates may not react in the same way to these styles in different cultures.
Secondly, the particular styles of leadership, which are associated with leadership
effectiveness, may vary in different cultures. Leadership styles which emerged from
research carried out in the USA may not be associated with leadership effectiveness in
some cultures, but equally there may be additional leadership styles which are
associated with leadership effectiveness in these cultures which did not emerge from the
American studies.
Thus it is important to establish the extent to which the conclusions drawn
concerning the nature and effectiveness of transformational leadership based on
research carried out in the USA can be applied in other cultures. Most of the
cross-cultural studies have not focussed on the new paradigm of leadership and there is
scarcity of cross-cultural studies of transformational and transactional leadership.
Large-scale comparative studies, such as Hofstede (1980) and the Globe Project
(Den Hartog and House, 1999) are useful, because they provide an overall picture of
cultural differences with respect to leadership. However, in-depth studies of leadership
in particular cultures are also required, because they may identify specific aspects of
leadership in a particular culture, which would be missed in broad-based global studies.
The present study focuses on the nature of leadership in Egyptian. It is an in-depth study
of the suitability of transformational/ transactional leadership in a Middle Eastern
emerging nation, whose culture differs significantly from that of Western countries.

A view of the Egyptian culture

Egypt is a country of specific geographical and historical nature. It is an Arab
Republic, located in North Africa in the Middle East, bordering Africa, Asia and
Europe. Its population in 2001 was 61,401,600, which is the largest in any Arab nation.
Its land area is 10,01,450 square km, making its population density among the highest
in the world. The major industries in Egypt are textiles, food processing, tourism,
chemicals, petroleum, and construction, cement metals, while its major agricultural
products are cotton, rice, corn, wheat beans and fruits. Its GDP is $70.3b in 2001 and its
GDP growth rate is 5.6 per cent (The Index of Economic Freedom – The Heritage
Foundation, 2001).
 The Nile has played a crucial role in Egyptian history, politics and culture. Leadership in the
Throughout its history, Egypt has been a highly centralised state. Ancient Egypt was
a hydraulic society. The Nile provided the basis for agriculture, industry, trade and
context of culture
services. The water of the Nile was essential to irrigate the land and had to be shared.
This called for cooperation and coordination among people (Ayubi, 1980). In a
hydraulic society, such as ancient Egypt, it was necessary to control the supply of
water. This led to the existence of a centralised government (Hopwood, 1993). 503
Ancient Egypt was one entity, covering both Delta and Upper Egypt. Despite this,
governed by one person – the Pharaoh – assisted by a top executive and the government
council. Subsequent political systems show remarkably similar characteristics. Under
the Arab Islamic rule Egypt was again controlled by one person – The Wali – and it was
ruled as one unit covering two major sectors, Upper and Lower Egypt. The government
was highly centralised with all authority in the hands of the Wali (Ayubi, 1980). He
controlled the executive and judicial functions, the leadership of the army and the police.
In 1952, Egypt became a presidential state. The president has dominant political
and governmental authority. At the same time, however, there was a growth in public
bureaucracy (Ayubi, 1989). According to Hatem (1994) rigid bureaucracy in Egypt is
one of the main features of the country and bureaucratic interactions are very
time-consuming.
The social culture of Egypt is characterised by Islam. Egypt has been an Islamic
country for 13 centuries and this has exerted a powerful influence on the life and society
of Egypt. Islam is a bond in the lives of Egyptians life and a factor uniting Egyptian
people. Muslims are little troubled by doubts or questioning they have certainty in faith
(Hopwood, 1993). According to Hofstede (1980), Arab countries including Egypt scored
high on uncertainty avoidance. Other countries, such as Greece, Portugal and
Guatemala scored higher. However, Parnell and Hatem (1999) argue that one of the
crucial factors that may have lowered Arab counties score is Islam. Muslims do not
question events and are more likely to accept uncertainties of life.
Generally in the Middle East the family is at the centre of the society. In Egypt,
family members are very close and look after each other. The father or grandfather has
complete authority over his family and usually the final word in any decision is his. In
a recent survey Egyptians were found to have a great fear of loneliness; they always
desire to be surrounded by relatives and friends (Hopwood, 1993).
This view of Egyptian culture illustrates some of its most salient features, which are
deeply embedded in its society. There is a tendency towards charismatic leadership,
which is linked to its historical background. Social integration in the form of
cooperation and coordination among people stems from its geography, in particular its
dependence on the Nile, and from its social culture, which depends on Islam. Both these
features must be taken into account, when considering the leadership styles which
would be most appropriate with the Egyptian culture.
The Egyptian culture and the new paradigm of leadership
It is clear from the previous discussion that charismatic leadership and social
integration are key elements of Egyptian culture. It is important, therefore, to examine
the extent to which they are reflected in current approaches to leadership theory, if we
are to assess their relevance in the Egyptian context.
As we have seen, there has been much recent work in the area of charismatic
leadership and it played an important part in Bass’s (1985) original theory of
LODJ transformational leadership. However, the form which charismatic leadership has
25,6 largely taken in the Egyptian context differs from the type of transformational
leadership described in Bass and Avolio’s (1994) revised version of the theory, in that it
has a strong element of authoritarianism. It has more in common Howell’s (1988)
“personalised” charismatic leader, whose need for unquestioning trust, obedience and
submission create dependency and conformity, as opposed to the “socialised”
504 charismatic, who develops and stimulates followers by providing greater empowerment
and autonomy. Unlike, transformational leadership, this type of charismatic leadership
does not motivate people to perform beyond their expectations and has no place for
higher order needs. The leader’s power is employed to influence followers to perform
their normal activities. In the Egyptian culture, this type of leadership also exhibited
strong elements of transactional leadership in that it led people to be dependent
on directions from those with authority. Thus, contingent reward and
management-by-exception provided clear ways of directing subordinates who are
influenced by a higher power and could not perform except under his guidance.
Social integration is not considered as an aspect of either transactional or
transformational leadership in Bass and Avolio’s model. However, Sashkin (1988)
referred to the importance of the coordination and cooperation to the effective
realisation of a vision. This dimension was not investigated clearly despite its
importance. Given the important role it plays in Egyptian culture, social integration
inevitably has a major influence on Egyptian working life. The cooperation and
coordination of workers is not just a matter of bringing them to work together, but also
involves creating harmony among the group members. It is one of the major factors,
which affects workers’ job satisfaction, and thus could be a reason to remain in a
particular job or to quit! Social integration is not just between the leader and his or her
group but also between the members of the group themselves.
It follows that leadership concepts derived from research carried out in Western
countries may need redefinition or reconceptualisation before they can be applied with
any degree of confidence in a different cultural context, such as Egypt. The aims of the
present research are, therefore, twofold. Firstly, we wish to establish the extent to
which the dimensions currently identified in Bass and Avolio’s (1994) model of
transformational and transactional leadership are relevant in an Egyptian context.
Secondly, we wish to establish whether additional dimensions, reflecting fundamental
aspects of Egyptian culture, are required more fully to explain leadership effectiveness
in Egypt. In particular, the research will examine the role of social integration and of an
authoritarian, personalised style of charismatic style in relation to leadership
effectiveness.

Methodology
Questionnaires were distributed to managers and subordinates in ten Egyptian banks.
The sample included public sector banks, joint ventures and private investment
banking companies. The result was a total of 243 usable responses, from 173
subordinates and 70 middle- and top-level managers. The questionnaire included the
questions from Bass and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ Form 5x-Short, translated into Arabic
by the first author. These questions are intended to measure the eight factors
(four aspects of transformational leadership, three aspects of transactional leadership,
and laissez-faire) identified in Bass and Avolio’s (1994) leadership model.
Further questions were included concerning social integration and Leadership in the
pseudotransformational leadership. Questions concerning social integration were context of culture
included because it was felt to be a major characteristic of Egyptian culture, for the
reasons outlined above. The questions intended to measure pseudotransformational
leadership were included for two main reasons. One is that we regard it as a major
omission from the MLQ. If Bass (1998) is correct that there are pseudotransformational
leaders, who exhibit many of the characteristics of transformational leaders, but who 505
are in fact self-concerned, self-aggrandising, exploitive, power-oriented leaders, who
believe in distorted utilitarian and warped moral principles, then it is important that
the means of identifying such leaders should be developed. This consideration would
apply irrespective of the country concerned. However, as we have noted, the history
and geography of Egypt has lent itself to the development of a more authoritarian,
personalised style of charismatic leadership. Thus this concept is of particular
relevance to the present study.
Each of the ten leadership factors mentioned above was represented in the
questionnaire by four questions, except for idealised influence, which is represented by
eight questions, four representing idealised influence (attributed) and four representing
idealised influence (behaviour).

Findings
The 44 leadership variables were purified before subjecting them to factor analysis. An
item to total correlation (ITTC) was performed for each scale (for each four questions
representing a particular leadership scale). Variables with low correlation were
removed to improve reliability. According to Nunnally (1978), the minimal acceptable
rate is 0.4. Any variable with an ITTC less than 0.4 was therefore removed. This led to
the removal of 14 variables. The remaining 30 leadership variables or items were factor
analysed, using the principle components analysis method. Seven factors with
eigenvalues greater than one were extracted, accounting for almost 70 per cent of the
variance (Table II).
The first factor, “positive leadership”, appears to be a general factor, indicating
active involvement in a variety of different leadership activities. It includes items
relating to respect, morality, power, direction, checking, reward, collective mission, and
strong sense of mission. The second factor, “reluctant decision-making”, reflects
avoiding taking decisions, not getting involved in work issues, delaying important
decisions, and not finding it logical to rush and solve problems. The third factor,
“enthusiastic leadership”, reflects seeking different perspectives to solve problems,
suggesting new ways of looking at how to do work, expressing confidence in work, and
talking enthusiastically about what should be accomplished. The fourth factor,
“bureaucratic leadership”, reflects, attention towards failure, discussion of who is
responsible for achieving performance, and focusing attention on irregularities and
mistakes. The fifth factor, “social integration”, reflects encouragement of social
gatherings due to the importance of this at work and for the achievement of work
objectives, and encouraging group members to discuss work issues together. The
sixth factor, “authoritarian leadership”, reflects, enjoying exercising power and
influencing group members. The seventh factor, “individual consideration”, reflects,
teaching and coaching, treating subordinates as individuals and considering them as
having different needs, abilities and aspirations.
LODJ Leadership factors Factor loadings
25,6
Factor 1: Positive leadership
I treat my subordinates in ways that build respect for me 0.810
When taking any decisions I consider the moral and ethical
consequences 0.779
506 I display a sense of power and confidence 0.777
I make clear what my subordinates can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved 0.750
I keep track of all mistakes 0.743
I express satisfaction when my subordinates meet expectations 0.703
I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense
of mission 0.649
I specify the importance of have strong sense of mission 0.643
Factor 2: Reluctant decision-making
I take decisions before things go wrong (opposite coding) 0.931
I prefer to leave work issues take their normal course without
getting involved 0.874
It is better to delay making decisions until they are urgently
required 0.852
It is logical not to rush and solve problems before they
become serious 0.683
Factor 3: Enthusiastic leadership
I seek different perspectives when solving problems 0.834
I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0.801
I express confidence that goals will be achieved 0.742
I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0.697
Factor 4: Bureaucratic leadership
I direct my attention towards failure to meet standards 0.761
I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving
performance targets 0.755
I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations
from standards 0.683
Factor 5: Social integration
I encourage social gatherings because this is important for work 0.753
Social relations among members of my group is the most important
factor for the achievement of work objectives 0.715
I encourage members of my group to discuss work-related problems
together 0.675
Factor 6: Authoritarian leadership
I enjoy exercising power over my subordinates 0.792
I use my ability to influence members of my group to achieve my
requirements 0.744
Factor 7: Individual consideration
I make a great effort in teaching and coaching 0.865
I treat members of my subordinates as individuals rather than just
Table II. members of the group 0.789
Factor loadings of I consider my subordinates as having different needs, abilities and
leadership factors aspirations from each other 0.774
Discussion Leadership in the
The result of the factor analysis supports our contention that national culture influences context of culture
the types of behaviour which are regarded as being associated with leadership. Three of
the factors which emerged from the present study were similar to those found in US
samples by Bass and Avolio (1994). “Reluctant decision-making” contains items of
passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire. “Enthusiastic leadership” contains
elements of Bass and Avolio’s inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. 507
Finally, “individual consideration” is similar to the same factor in the US model.
However, the remaining four factors differ significantly from those derived from Bass’s
US samples. Furthermore, they are all consistent with our earlier description of Egyptian
culture. The first factor, “positive leadership”, includes a wide range of leadership
activities. They are all positive and are drawn from different factors, both
transformational and transactional, in Bass and Avolio’s (1994) model. According to
Bass (1999), all the transformational leadership items have loaded onto one factor in
some studies. This includes a recent study of Australian civil servants (Careless, 1997).
However, the emergence of one factor involving positive aspects of both
transformational and transactional leadership could be a symptom of the Egyptian
centralised form of management (Palmer et al., 1988). It could also be a function of the
relatively high levels of collectivism and power distance which Hofstede (1980, 1991)
found in Middle Eastern countries. According to Smith et al. (1989), a single effective
leadership style has been identified in a range of collectivist countries. Ayman and
Chemers (1983) found a similar factor from a study conducted in Iran, another Middle
Eastern, Islamic, collectivistic country. This study aimed to assess subordinates’
perception of leader behaviour, leader performance and subordinates’ job satisfaction
with respect to a group of 32 Iranian managers. Only two factors emerged from the
analysis of subordinates’ perception of leader behaviour. One factor contained most of
the items reflecting positive leadership, and 13 items contributed positively to this
factor. The factor was named Benevolent Paternalism; the 13 items were pleasantness,
direction, equality, fairness, rewarding good work, specifying tasks of each worker,
welcoming new ideas, criticizing bad work, guiding, friendly, trying to meet deadlines,
being like a father and being a good supervisor. The other factor, labelled “domineering”
contained only two items (“makes everyone know he is the boss” and “has his own way
of doing things and makes everyone obey him”). Subordinates were more satisfied with
superiors perceived as benevolently paternalistic and dissatisfied with domineering
superiors, whilst the managers’ our superiors rated those behaving in a benevolent
paternalistic fashion as being more effective.
Recently, Wilson (2003) compared leadership styles in Britain and the Philippines,
based on factor analyses of subordinates’ ratings of their immediate superiors’
leadership behaviour. The first factor to emerge from the factor analysis of the British
data contained elements of consideration and participation, which is consistent with
the findings of the Ohio State studies (Halpin and Winer, 1957). However, the first
Philippine factor contained elements of consideration, participation and change
orientation. Wilson suggests that the forces inherent in collectivism and to some extent
power distance may serve to restrict the freedom of managers to select widely different
leadership styles.
The Egyptian factor “bureaucratic leadership” bears some relationship to passive
management-by-exception, in that it involves waiting for something to go wrong
LODJ before taking action. Nevertheless, it also suggests the operation of a blame culture.
When things go wrong, blame is attributed to other people for their mistakes or failure
25,6 to follow rules, whilst implicitly absolving oneself from any responsibility for what has
happened. It is thus consistent with our earlier description of the powerful influence of
bureaucracy in Egyptian society (Palmer et al., 1988).
Factor 5, social integration, contains items which were introduced to identify the
508 importance of social integration in the Egyptian leadership. For geographical and
historical reasons Egyptians place a strong emphasis on maintaining harmony in the
workplace (Parnell and Hatem, 1999). Its emergence as a separate factor confirmed its
importance for leadership in Egypt. This factor was not included in Bass and Avolio’s
model, but in the Egyptian context, it appears to be an essential element of successful
leadership.
Factor 6, authoritarian leadership, is again consistent with Egyptian culture. As we
noted earlier, leadership in Egypt has tended towards authoritarianism for both
geographical and historical reasons. Its emergence as a separate factor is also
consistent with the high levels of power distance found in Middle Eastern countries by
Hofstede (1980, 1991).

Conclusion
This study illustrates the impact of culture on leadership styles. In particular it
supports Bass’s (1996) contention that Bass and Avolio’s (1994) model of
transformational and transactional leadership has universal potential, but may
require adjustment as we move across culture. He further argued that such adjustment
was more likely to be required in non-Western cultures. In the present study of
leadership in Egypt, certain aspects of Bass and Avolio’s model, including
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration,
passive management-by-exception and laissez-fair, were either wholly or partially
replicated. On the other hand, there were also leadership dimensions, which differed in
significant respects from those identified by Bass and Avolio. There was a broad factor
comprising positive aspects of both transformational and transactional leadership,
which we have called positive leadership and factors representing more specifically
bureaucratic leadership, social integration and autocratic leadership. All these
additional factors can be explained in terms of Egypt’s historical, geographical and
political heritage.
Given the fact that Egyptian culture is in many respects similar to that of other
Islamic countries in the Middle East, it seems like that the model of leadership
developed in the present study will be more relevant in such countries than the original
model of transformational and transactional leadership developed in the United States.
Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that there are also cultural differences among
Middle Eastern countries. Thus, further modifications may be required in their case.
In other non-Western countries, entirely different modifications may be required.
Thus, we would argue that it is necessary to be extremely cautious when attempting
to apply concepts from Western leadership theories in non-Western countries. Some of
the concepts may be relevant, but some may not and yet others may be required to
represent more fully the factors involved in effective leadership in such countries.
To discover which of these is the case, however, requires in-depth studies of the
national cultures concerned.
 It must also be remembered that even within the same society, there can be Leadership in the
variations in organisational culture. Such differences may occur among different sectors context of culture
of the society or among different organisations within the same sector. In the present
research, all respondents worked in the banking sector. Thus, their view of leadership
may differ in some respects from those held in other sectors within Egyptian society.
However, the sample was drawn from three different types of banks, namely, public
sector banks, joint ventures and private investment banking companies. Thus, there 509
remains the possibility that there were some differences in the way leadership is viewed
in the different types of institution. This issue will be explored in a later paper.
Finally, we were disappointed that the hypothesised factor of
pseudo-transformational leadership did not emerge from the data collected in the
present research. It may be that there were no pseudo-transformational leaders in the
sample of managers studied in the present research. However, it could also be that such
managers either lack the self-awareness or honesty to reveal their use of this type of
leadership and their subordinates have not realised that the apparent transformational
approach exhibited by some leaders is in fact fake. Thus, more sophisticated questions
may be needed to elicit information on this type of leadership. Nevertheless, we remain
convinced that this is an issue of considerable theoretical and practical importance and
one which is well worthy of further research.

References
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A. and Yammario, F.J. (1991), “Leading in the 1990s: the four Is of
transformational leadership”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 9-16.
Ayman, R. and Chemers, M.M. (1983), “Relationship of supervisory behavior ratings to work
group effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian managers”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 338-41.
Ayubi, N.N.M. (1980), Bureaucracy and Politics in Contemporary Egypt, Ithaca Press, London.
Ayubi, N.N.M. (1989), “Government and the state in Egypt today”, in Tripp, C. and Owen, R.
(Eds), Egypt Under Mubarak, Routledge, London, pp. 1-20.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Collier Macmillan, London.
Bass, B.M. (1996), “Is there universality in the full range model of leadership”, International
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 731-61.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership; Industrial, Military and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: a response to critiques”, in
Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and
Directions, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 49-80.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x-Short,
Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
LODJ Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
25,6
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Carless, S.A. (1998), “Assessing the discriminate validity of transformational leader behavior as
measured by the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71
No. 4, pp. 353-8.
510 Conger, J.A. (1989), The Charismatic Leader, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Sage, London.
Den Hartog, D.N. and House, R.J. (1999), “Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable
implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership
universally endorsed?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56.
Erez, M. and Early, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-Identity and Work, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Culture, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Halpin, A.W. and Winer, B.J. (1957), “A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions”, in
Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement,
Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, pp. 39-51.
Hatem, T. (1994), “Exploring management in the Middle East”, International Studies of
Management and Organization, Vol. 24 Nos 1/2, pp. 116-37.
Hoecklin, L. (1995), Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantages,
Addison Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
Sage, Beverly hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill, London.
Hofstede, G. (1998), “Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 477-685.
Hopwood, D. (1993), Egypt: Politics and Society 1945-1990, Routledge, New York, NY.
House, R.J. (1977), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds),
Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL,
pp. 189-207.
House, R.J. and Shamir, B. (1993), “Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and
visionary theories”, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 577-94.
Howell, J.M. (1988), “Two faces of charisma: socialized and personalized leadership in
organizations”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo (Eds), Charisma Leadership: The Elusive
Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 213-36.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Palmer, M., Yassin, E. and Leila, A. (1988), “Bureaucratic flexibility and development in Egypt”,
Public Administration and Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-37.
Parnell, J.A. and Hatem, T. (1999), “Cultural antecedents of behavioral differences between
American and Egyptian managers”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 399-418.
Sashkin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic
Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 123-60.
Smith, P.B. and Peterson, M.F. (1988), Leadership, Organization and Culture: An Event Leadership in the
Management Model, Sage, London.
Smith, P.B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M., Peterson, M. and Bond, M. (1989), “On the generality of
context of culture
leadership style measures across cultures”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62,
pp. 97-109.
Tayeb, M. (1996), The Management of a Multicultural Workforce, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader: The Key to Global 511
Competitiveness, Wiley, New York, NY.
Triandis, H.C. (1972), The Analysis of Subjective Culture, Wiley, New York, NY.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, Brealey, London.
Wilson, H.J. (2003), “Managerial leadership in Britain and the Philippines”, PhD thesis,
University of Bradford, School of Management.
Yokochi, N. (1989), “Leadership styles in Japanese business executives and managers:
transformational and transactional”, PhD thesis, United States International University,
San Diego.