Now we started our conversation about leadership with some basic principles that you want to consider as you think about your own leadership development. Number one, there's no simple formula for leadership, you need to develop your own style. Number two is that, followers and leaders are in an interdependent relationship. That's why I want to really focus on that relationship as a leader. Number three, you need to be adaptive and flexible as a leader so that you can actually react appropriately to all kinds of different challenges and and situations. that you can actually react appropriately to all kinds of different challenges and and situations. Those are the three principles. They give you a general direction as we think about leadership development, but they don't really point out concrete steps that you can take to enhance your leadership competencies. Now in this course we'll identify those opportunities for development and those competencies that you want to develop as a leader based on organizational behavior research. Since that area of organization behavior research is really the foundation, Since that area of organization behavior research is really the foundation, is the bedrock for what we do in the course, I wanted to talk to a member of Bocconi faculty to talk a little bit about the advantages and the value that that perspective can offer to leaders. Thank you, Franz, for joining me for this segment. You bet, no problem. How would you summarize the OB perspective in just a few words? How would you summarize the OB perspective in just a few words? Basically OB scholars are trying to explain individual and collective behavior in organizations with social science research. There are a number of scientific disciplines involved in this enterprise: There are a number of scientific disciplines involved in this enterprise: Social psychology; sociology; behavioral economics, which is very strongly influenced by social psychology and psychology in general; and communication studies, and increasingly also neuroscience. Now to put it very simply, what these scholars are generally interested in is a realistic depiction of behavior and organizations and of the cognitive and the emotional processes that come with it. They are not just interested in some idealized economic rationality, but they want to understand what is really the behavior that is going on, and they place a strong emphasis on explaining why that behavior occurs. That's a question of the mechanism; on explaining why that behavior occurs. That's a question of the mechanism; so what are the triggers for behavior? They employ rigorous scientific methodology to get to those insights. They employ rigorous scientific methodology to get to those insights. It could be laboratory experiments or field experiments; it could be surveys; It could be laboratory experiments or field experiments; it could be surveys; it could be ethnography out there in the field. By and large there is a fairly high standard for actually formulating generalizable knowledge based on those empirical findings to really make sure that we have a robust explanation of why that behavior occurs. explanation of why that behavior occurs. That scientific approach is relatively novel. That scientific approach is relatively novel. It’s existed for one hundred years, give or take; And the focus on the international aspect of that, so the international leadership dimension, it’s scientific study of that is even younger. the international leadership dimension, it’s scientific study of that is even younger. Now people have thought and written about leadership for a long long time. Now people have thought and written about leadership for a long long time. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Chinese: they have all written about this even before Christ was born, extensively! but a lot of these early writings were based on anecdote. They were looking at and analyzing big leaders, both good and bad, and that's what they derived their insights from. To some degree, even today, most of the popular leadership literature actually has that same anecdotal approach. We still look at great leaders and try to derive insights from that. You emphasize that there is a strong emphasis on solid scientific methodology. You emphasize that there is a strong emphasis on solid scientific methodology. Is it very dry and do you need a PhD to make it through the first paragraph of a paper or a publication out there, or is this literature something that is actually approachable and digestible to practitioners? or is this literature something that is actually approachable and digestible to practitioners? When I mentioned the scientific and empirical approach to leadership that the OB perspective brings, I do not say that to push you away or to make you disinterested the OB perspective brings, I do not say that to push you away or to make you disinterested in engaging with the literature. I think, actually, it is a very rich and fascinating literature. If there is one fault with it, maybe it is that it is a little too rich because there are many competing theories and there is not necessarily a lot of closure. However, it is very approachable. It is very accessible because it is about subject matters that we can all relate to, something that we can all experience. that we can all relate to, something that we can all experience. That makes it intriguing for all those who actually have engaged it. I have worked with a number of organizations that have actually, on their own initiative, started communities of practice where managers and leaders come together and read and discuss current research in OB. come together and read and discuss current research in OB. This is not some kind of popularized version of that research or a summary. This is not some kind of popularized version of that research or a summary. They actually look at the research itself. They do so to improve their practice. When you think about it, that is what lawyers and doctors, at least, many of the better ones do; they stay abreast with current research. do; they stay abreast with current research. I think leaders should do the same. This behavioral research has really been popularized in the last few years, maybe the last ten or so. If you have read any of Malcom Gladwell's books: Bling, Tipping Point, or another one that was popular was, Thaler and Sunstein's Nudge; this is mostly behavioral research. It is very fun to read, that is why it finds a very popular audience to some degree, because it is that is why it finds a very popular audience to some degree, because it is seemingly strange behavior in some cases, irrational behavior. But we can all recognize it, we all know it from our daily experience. What the research shows is that often unexpected triggers or unexpected outcomes from that behavior. My own training has been in OB, so that is why it is my intellectual home base. My own training has been in OB, so that is why it is my intellectual home base. I am very positively predisposed towards it. You could misconstrue me for being biased towards it if you will, but I do think that it is really helpful for leaders to understand and to engage the literature, because it helpful for leaders to understand and to engage the literature, because it avoids recipes to a large extent. It does not provide any great formula avoids recipes to a large extent. It does not provide any great formula for becoming a better leader, but it teaches you about the fundamentals of human behavior and organization. You understand the ingredients, right? You do not get a recipe, but you understand the ingredients. If you like to put it metaphorically, that's what great cooks do. They understand the ingredients, and based on that knowledge they can create great recipes by themselves. So that's the general OB approach. Now what is special about about international OB? The international OB literature tries to identify the commonalities and the differences of individual and collective behavior in organizations. It builds on the great insights that anthropology and sociology predicted; and cultural sociology has shown that our behavior is not universal. It is not programmed in us the same way everywhere around the world. It is actually shaped by the cultural context in which we are embedded. That's the starting point for the literature. What it has ultimately done is, since it is a more recent area of research, but is flourishing a lot. is that it is making things making those research findings a lot more globally appealing and less ethnocentric; because most of the OB research has been, and still is conducted in the U.S. and in Europe. Clearly they provide explanations for behavior that may be very culturally biased. So acknowledging those cultural differences, having that international perspective, really makes it more relevant to a broader international audience. Now traditionally people have taken what we could call a macro approach to this. They kind of get a country level or sometimes regional level analysis. This is to say that they have basically looked at what the beliefs and values in a particular country region are. For example: Germans value efficiency, Americans value independence, that sort of thing. That is actually an old intellectual tradition from anthropology in the 1920s. What people did a lot in anthropology is identify and classify every culture that they encountered. That was the approach. This has been extremely popular. You can imagine it is nice to teach, “You classify culture you A, and if you are in culture A, not culture B, then do X.” That is why it has been very widely used also for leadership development. Clearly there are some problems with it though. One of the key players in that area in the macro approach to international would be Geert Hofstede. He recognizes this is a key problem, he says that there is an ecological fallacy. What he means by that is if we have the property of a population, of people in a country or a region. and we know they are individualists or collectivists for example, then we might over-generalize that insight to individual behavior. Individuals, though, have many different influences on their behavior so somebody who lives in an individualist country might still have a particular more collectivist orientation. That's one of the problems. The other problem is that culture also is more than just values. You cannot only focus on the values and beliefs, that is not all that cultures is about. There is some problems with that approach. Given these problems with the macro perspective that you highlighted, what is an alternative a micro perspective? Exactly. The micro approach focuses on the on the individual. For example, we know that people have different expectations of leadership: what leaders are supposed to do in different countries and different cultural settings. Now the point is that is does not always have to be based only on values. We buy into the belief that collaborative or participative leadership is good and, and hierarchical is bad. Often it is actually more subtle. Our ways of thinking and perceiving the world can influence what we ultimately then judge as good or bad leadership. There is the study that showed for example, that when Japanese followers evaluate their leaders based on a logic of appropriateness. They ask themselves if the behavior appropriate based on the situation and certain principles. And when U.S. Americans evaluate their leaders, they do it based on an evaluation of the consequences. In other words, “how effective was that behavior?” Regardless of whether it was kind of appropriate or based on principle or whatnot. That is a fairly fundamental kind of cognitive difference in seeing the world. That is ultimately what the micro approach emphasizes. Culture is not just beliefs and/or values, it very fundamentally influences our cognitive and our emotional processes. Which can be really helpful for leaders to understand. Now the one area that I find absolutely fascinating that is really burgeoning right now is cultural neuroscience. It takes this idea and runs with it and shows that over generations the different ways of interacting in a particular culture actually shape your neurological development in a certain way; your brain actually gets wired in a different way. That a really exciting and fascinating kind of research. Bruce Weller has written a fascinating book that I heartily recommend. All this fascinating research, all those wonderful insights, how is, that actually practically useful and usable for a practically minded international leader? Understanding human behavior is the foundation for being able to influence human behavior. That is what international leaders in one way or another have to do to be effective. The million dollar question, of course, is how can you influence behavior effectively. I want to be realistic here: the international OB research domain is fairly young; and particularly the group of scholars that take this micro approach the one that tries to avoid this broad-brush generalization of cultures, is even younger, in its infancy you could say. That should be a warning sign of strong normative statements and claims that if you are a U.S. American and you are dealing with a Japanese, then you have to do X. We do not know. We do not have good solid empirical evidence at this micro level. Understanding what really goes through people's heads; what is their cognitive and their emotional experience of this intercultural international kind of experience? We don't have that. We do not have all the answers from that research. What we do have is a really good orientation of what issues are critical and what matters. That’s what we should be paying attention to as international leaders, and how you want to use it. So that it points you to points of difference, that you know that different cultures perceive and evaluate different leadership behaviors differently. So that you're aware of those differences. We also know that if you stress cultural differences, especially in very diverse, very heterogeneous teams, that, paradoxically, actually help people bring together. If you acknowledge, those differences in a group that is how it can be helpful. And the other benefit of international OB research can be that it actually does point to some commonalities. That research has shown and has suggested that some areas actually do react very similarly or exactly the same across cultures. So this is a safe space for leaders to some degree, where the complexity is reduced a little bit. But there's also something that you can stress You can stress to followers that look, we all care about this, we all think that this is important, to create a common ground as well. One of the godfathers of the, of behavioral research and the OB area generally was Kurt Lewin. And he famously said that there is nothing as practical as a good theory. That is how I feel about international peer research. It does not have all the answers, but it does point out the issues that matter. That really can help leaders navigate in the increasingly complex and global settings where they operate. The practical value of a good theory. Thanks very much. It was a pleasure, a pleasure having you here. The pleasure was all mine. And good luck with the course. Thanks.
