Symbolic Leadership in a Transnational Context: An Investigation on Leaders’ Adjustment and Acceptance

  • Christian LinderEmail author


Every leader’s symbolic action creates meaning. However, it is especially the symbols which leaders in a cross-cultural context use that are always reconstructed based on experience, culture, and generally accepted and practised values from a different cultural background. Accordingly, this chapter analyses the adjustment process of expatriate managers abroad; special emphasis is put on the degree to which the willingness to adjust the symbolic actions to the local cultural environment is rewarded with a higher acceptance as leader. Results show that, especially, the adjustment of language and behaviour results in a higher acceptance rate. Thus, it is argued in this chapter that leaders should carefully regard how their symbolic interactions are interpreted or comprehended by the host country workforce since the acceptance as a leader is one important aspect in order to achieve success in an international assignment.


Symbolic leadership Expatriates Adjustment The Philippines 


  1. Andres, T. D. (1985). Management by Filipino values. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Ang, S., van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armenakis, A., Fredenberger, W., Giles, W., Cherones, L., Feild, H., & Holley, W. (1996). Symbolism use by business turnaround change agents. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(2), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartoelke, K. (1987). Leadership: Nothing but constructing reality by negotiations? In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 151–157). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  5. Black, J., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Towards a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291–317.Google Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kim, K., Farh, C. I. C., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When does cross-cultural motivation enhance expatriate effectiveness? A multilevel investigation of the moderating roles of subsidiary support and cultural distance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1110–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dandridge, T., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. (1980). Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 77–82.Google Scholar
  9. de Leon, C. T. (1987). Social categorisation in Philippine organisations: Values toward collective identity and management through intergroup relations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 5(1), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dierendonck, D. van. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Understanding leadership perspectives: Theoretical and practical approaches. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Festing, M., & Maletzky, M. (2010). Cross-cultural leadership adjustment: A multilevel framework based on the theory of structuration. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guthrie, G. M. (1968). The Philippine temperament: Six perspectives on the Philippines. In G. M. Guthrie (Ed.), Philippines (pp. 49–83). Quezon City: Bookmark.Google Scholar
  15. Haslberger, A. (2005). The complexities of expatriate adaptation. Human Resource Management Review, 15(2), 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckathorn, D. D. (1990). Collective sanctions and compliance norms: A formal theory of group mediated social control. American Sociological Review, 55(3), 366–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (2005). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Hollnsteiner, M. R. (1970). Reciprocity in the lowland Philippines. In F. Lynch (Ed.), Four readings on Philippine values (pp. 65–108). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.Google Scholar
  19. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katz, J. E., & Sugiyama, S. (2005). Mobile phones as fashion statements: The co-creation of mobile communication’s public. Meaning, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 31(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, B. E., & Bredeson, P. V. (1991). Measures of meaning in a Public and in a parochial school: Principals as symbol manager. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(3), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kossek, E. E., Huang, J. L., Piszczek, M. M., Fleenor, J. W., & Ruderman, M. (2015). Rating expatriate leader effectiveness in multisource feedback systems: Cultural distance and hierarchical effects. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Littrell, R. F., Alon, I., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Regional differences in managerial leader behaviour preferences in China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, Mass: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, G., Frost, P. J., & Pondy, L. R. (1983). Organizational symbolism. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Neuberger, O. (1995). Führen und Geführt werden. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
  28. Nowak, C., & Linder, C. (2016). Do you know how much your expatriate costs?: An activity-based cost analysis of expatriation. Journal of Global Mobility, 4(1), 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oguri, M., & Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). The influence of self construals and communication styles on sojourners’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(5), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pondy, L. R. (1978). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  31. Seale, C. (2007). Quality in qualitative research. In C. Seale, G. Giampetro, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 379–389). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Selmer, J. (2007). Which is easier, adjusting to a similar or to a dissimilar culture? American business expatriates in Canada and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7(2), 185–201.Google Scholar
  33. Shaheena, J. J. (2003). The sustainability of social capital within ethnic. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shay, J., & Bruce, T. (1997). Expatriate managers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 38(1), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shenkar, O. (2012). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tayeb, M. (1995). The competitive advantage of nations: The role of HRM and its socio-cultural context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 588–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winkler, I. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories: Enhancing the understanding of the complexity, subjectivity and dynamic of leadership. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg, New York: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Zimmermann, A., & Sparrow, P. (2007). Mutual adjustment processes in international teams. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(3), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations