There is disagreement regarding applicability of Baumrind’s authoritative model to collectivistic
cultures
Some suggest it isn’t relevant to cultures like China
Other suggest that this model has functional relevance for child outcomes in collectivistic
cultures like China
Explanation 1: Authoritarian parenting style is associated with positive parental characteristics in
collectivist cultures and with negative parental characteristics in individualist cultures
It was found that the lack of warmth accompanying an authoritarian parenting style has negative
consequences in individualistic AS WELL AS collectivistic cultures. So authoritarian parenting style is
not associated with positive parental characteristics in collectivistic cultures.
Explanation two: Training is a culture-specific form of parenting that is distinct from Baumrind’s
parenting styles and parenting dimensions of warmth and control
Training is a form of Chinese parenting defined by orginasational control and parental investment
and involvement. The finding of the author was that there is a positive link between training and
academic achievement. Also, training is consistent with the parenting dimensions of warmth and
more akin to authoritative than authoritarian parenting in collectivistic cultures. Training is also
related to the same parenting goals in European-Americans and Chinese-Americans. So training is
NOT culture specific.
Explanation three: The positive versus the negative perceptions of adolescents in collectivist and
individualist cultures respectively mediate and ameliorate the negative effects of authoritarian
parenting
The author’s findings are that adolescents from both cultures see the negative aspects from
authoritarian parenting as negative. So adolescents from collectivistic cultures don’t see these
aspects (lack of warmth, exerting control) as positive. It also has negative impact on adolescent from
both cultures.
Reasons for treating Baumrind’s parenting styles as an etic (so similar across cultures)
The authoritative style is a good style in both cultures, because the parents are flexible and choose
their practices based on the situation and have mutual understanding.
THEME 4: PART 1
LOOSE VS. TIGHT SOCIETIES AND
LEADERSHIP
- “Tight” societies were described as those that were rigorously formal and disciplined, had
clearly defined norms, and imposed severe sanctions on individuals who deviate from norms.
- “Loose” societies were described as those that had a lack of formality, regimentation and
discipline, had norms expressed through a wide variety of alternative channels, and had a
high tolerance for deviant behavior.
, Implicit Leadership Theory
Implicit leadership theory posits that leadership is understood by a cognitive categorization process
by which individuals categorize the attributes that distinguish between effective and ineffective
leaders.
Leadership dimensions
- The first of these leadership dimensions is charismatic leadership, which includes visionary,
inspirational, self-sacrifice, integrity, decisive, and performance-oriented primary leadership
dimensions
- The second dimension is team-oriented leadership, which includes the primary leadership
dimensions of collaborative, team orientation, team integrator, diplomatic, malevolent
(reverse scored), and administratively competent
- The third dimension is self-protected leadership, which is composed of self-centered, status
consciousness, conflict inducer, face-saver, and procedural leadership dimensions
- The fourth dimension is participative leadership, which is composed of autocratic and
participative leadership primary leadership dimensions
- The fifth dimension is humane-oriented leadership, which is made up of modesty and
humane-orientation primary leadership dimensions
- The final dimension is autonomous leadership, which focuses on independent leadership and
not relying on others to make decisions
Leadership effectiveness perceptions in different cultures
Tightness is positively related to perceptions that autonomous leadership is effective and negatively
related to perceptions that team-oriented leadership is effective. Also, there is a negative relationship
between tightness and the perceived effectiveness of charismatic leadership. This supports the
notion that the status quo and prevention orientation of the tight cultures renders visionary and
inspirational leadership attributes to be seen as less effective as compared with loose cultures that
focus more on innovation.
Autonomous leadership styles are perceived as more effective in tight (compared with loose)
cultures, whereas charismatic and team leadership attributes are perceived as more effective in loose
cultures.
HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS
Hofstede’s six dimensions
1. Power Distance, related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality;
a. Example: as a child => how easily can you disagree/speak up to a teacher?
High power distance => less easy
Low power distance => still a difference of roles but less inequality => but teacher
facilitates education but not >> power over students
cultures
Some suggest it isn’t relevant to cultures like China
Other suggest that this model has functional relevance for child outcomes in collectivistic
cultures like China
Explanation 1: Authoritarian parenting style is associated with positive parental characteristics in
collectivist cultures and with negative parental characteristics in individualist cultures
It was found that the lack of warmth accompanying an authoritarian parenting style has negative
consequences in individualistic AS WELL AS collectivistic cultures. So authoritarian parenting style is
not associated with positive parental characteristics in collectivistic cultures.
Explanation two: Training is a culture-specific form of parenting that is distinct from Baumrind’s
parenting styles and parenting dimensions of warmth and control
Training is a form of Chinese parenting defined by orginasational control and parental investment
and involvement. The finding of the author was that there is a positive link between training and
academic achievement. Also, training is consistent with the parenting dimensions of warmth and
more akin to authoritative than authoritarian parenting in collectivistic cultures. Training is also
related to the same parenting goals in European-Americans and Chinese-Americans. So training is
NOT culture specific.
Explanation three: The positive versus the negative perceptions of adolescents in collectivist and
individualist cultures respectively mediate and ameliorate the negative effects of authoritarian
parenting
The author’s findings are that adolescents from both cultures see the negative aspects from
authoritarian parenting as negative. So adolescents from collectivistic cultures don’t see these
aspects (lack of warmth, exerting control) as positive. It also has negative impact on adolescent from
both cultures.
Reasons for treating Baumrind’s parenting styles as an etic (so similar across cultures)
The authoritative style is a good style in both cultures, because the parents are flexible and choose
their practices based on the situation and have mutual understanding.
THEME 4: PART 1
LOOSE VS. TIGHT SOCIETIES AND
LEADERSHIP
- “Tight” societies were described as those that were rigorously formal and disciplined, had
clearly defined norms, and imposed severe sanctions on individuals who deviate from norms.
- “Loose” societies were described as those that had a lack of formality, regimentation and
discipline, had norms expressed through a wide variety of alternative channels, and had a
high tolerance for deviant behavior.
, Implicit Leadership Theory
Implicit leadership theory posits that leadership is understood by a cognitive categorization process
by which individuals categorize the attributes that distinguish between effective and ineffective
leaders.
Leadership dimensions
- The first of these leadership dimensions is charismatic leadership, which includes visionary,
inspirational, self-sacrifice, integrity, decisive, and performance-oriented primary leadership
dimensions
- The second dimension is team-oriented leadership, which includes the primary leadership
dimensions of collaborative, team orientation, team integrator, diplomatic, malevolent
(reverse scored), and administratively competent
- The third dimension is self-protected leadership, which is composed of self-centered, status
consciousness, conflict inducer, face-saver, and procedural leadership dimensions
- The fourth dimension is participative leadership, which is composed of autocratic and
participative leadership primary leadership dimensions
- The fifth dimension is humane-oriented leadership, which is made up of modesty and
humane-orientation primary leadership dimensions
- The final dimension is autonomous leadership, which focuses on independent leadership and
not relying on others to make decisions
Leadership effectiveness perceptions in different cultures
Tightness is positively related to perceptions that autonomous leadership is effective and negatively
related to perceptions that team-oriented leadership is effective. Also, there is a negative relationship
between tightness and the perceived effectiveness of charismatic leadership. This supports the
notion that the status quo and prevention orientation of the tight cultures renders visionary and
inspirational leadership attributes to be seen as less effective as compared with loose cultures that
focus more on innovation.
Autonomous leadership styles are perceived as more effective in tight (compared with loose)
cultures, whereas charismatic and team leadership attributes are perceived as more effective in loose
cultures.
HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS
Hofstede’s six dimensions
1. Power Distance, related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality;
a. Example: as a child => how easily can you disagree/speak up to a teacher?
High power distance => less easy
Low power distance => still a difference of roles but less inequality => but teacher
facilitates education but not >> power over students
