5. Power in intercultural perspective

The previous example illustrating the generational problem within the church shows that our understanding of a right/wrong use of power is strongly influenced by the culture in which we grew up. The differences become even stronger when we look at the perception of power in totally different cultures.

In 1980, Geert Hofstede from the Netherlands published the first systematic study on intercultural management. He interviewed IBM employees in 50 countries and three regions. This IBM study generated four dimensions to mea- sure cultural differences, namely power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and uncertainty avoidance.

Hofstede and Hofstede defined power distance as "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally". Note that power distance is measured from the perspective of less powerful, ordinary people, whereas most modern leader- ship literature is written from the perspective of powerful people. Leadership can only exist together with followers. Thus leaders cannot be successful if they ignore the cultural parameter of power distance. A large power distance means that the less powerful people of this kind of culture accept and partly even expect power to be distributed unequally and that the powerful people will demonstrate their insignia of power. Behaviour like this would not be accepted in a culture with a low power distance.

In 1991 the USA management professor Robert J. House, initiated another research project on intercultural management, known as the GLOBE research project. It involved far more people than Hofstede's IBM study two decades before. During 1994-1997, 170 researchers interviewed 17 300 managers from 951 organisations in 62 cultures. They used nine dimensions of cultural variation and changed some of Hofstede's dimensions. However, they stuck to his definition of power distance is an important parameter for describing a culture.

Table 2: Differences between large and small power distance

Large power distance Small power distance
Key differences in general
Might prevails over right: whoever holds the power is right and good. The use of power should be legitimate and follow criteria of good and evil.
Inequalities among people are expected and desired. Inequalities among people should be minimised.
Mostly small middle class. Mostly a large middle class.
The powerful should have privileges.  All should have equal rights.
Privileges and status symbols are normal and popular. Privileges and status symbols are frowned upon.
At school
Teachers should take all initiative.
Teachers expect initiative from students in class.
Teachers are gurus.  Teachers are experts.
Students accord teachers respect, even outside of class. Student treat teachers as equals.
In organisations 
Hierarchy in organisations reflects existential inequality between higher and lower levels.
Hierarchy in organisations means an inequality of roles, established for convenience.
Centralisation is popular. Decentralisation is popular.
At the workplace
There is a wide salary range between the top and the bottom of the organisation. There is a narrow salary range between the top and the bottom of the organisation.
Subordinates expect to be told what to do. Subordinates expect to be consulted.
The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat, or "good father". The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat.

According to Hofstede and Hofstede, there is a strong correlation between collectivism and power distance. Almost all collectivist countries such as Asia, Latin America and black Africa, score high on power distance. Most of the individualistic countries score low on power distance. They are from the Anglo-Saxon world (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, white population in South Africa), Scandinavia, and the Germanic countries (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands). Latin Europe is indeed different. They combine high individualism with mid-range power distance. Top managers in France may blatantly declare: "I have power", whereas German top managers may describe their position as "having opportunities to do something".

The GLOBE study identified four main phe- nomena influencing the power distance index of a culture. It argued that "a society's predominant belief system and its religion or philosophy will have the most profound and enduring influence on power distance", and exemplified as follows:

In the GLOBE dataset, Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe, and Anglo clusters score low on societal power distance practices, but have comparatively stronger scores on participative leadership. These three clusters share protestant reformation as a major influence. The reformed clusters profess the direct relationship of God and humans without the mediation of the church or the clerics, and thus nurtured a vision of humans as responsible persons.

This statement is further supported by looking at the beginning of the Reformation. That an unknown monk like Martin Luther would dare to stand up and to speak against the powerful Pope sets an example for small power distance. Although the word protestantism was coined after the special protest at the Reichstag zu Speyer in 1529, it also describes something inherent in the Protestant movement where people often protested against the authorities, which finally led to the fragmentation of the Protestant movement.

Our conclusion is that our understanding of power, authority and submission, and our judgement of whether a particular use of power is good or bad is first and foremost shaped by the culture in which we grew up.

We should be aware of this dependency. Often authors who claim to be describing "the biblical leadership" end up describing what they consider to be good leadership from their cultural perspective. There is always the danger of focusing on those Bible verses that support one's own view on leadership culture and ignoring other Bible verses.

One might ask whether there is an ideal power distance index in line with Christian ethics. On the one hand, the Bible teaches us to respect authorities. On the other hand, it clearly condemns might prevailing over right. Since the Bible's focus is on the ethics of power and not very much on the organi- sational structuring of power, we cannot derive a specific ideal number for a "Christian" power distance index. A serving leader simply has to take into account the power distance of the people or staff whom he/she is serving. In a country where people maintain a large power distance, they expect directive leading and might be confused by a western-oriented participative leadership style. The staff might even draw the conclusion that the leader is incompetent, because he/she does not tell them what to do. On the other hand, if a leader comes from a high power distance culture to a country with a low power distance without changing his/her leadership style, the staff might easily allege an abuse of power.

How do we know whether we exercise our power adequately? The first problem is our blind spot. We do not see our own deficiencies as leaders. It can easily happen that we preach and teach about servant leadership in the full conviction that this is exactly the way we lead – whereas our immediate environment might judge our actual exercise of power very differently. The second problem is that subordinates often do not dare to speak openly. In cultures with a high power distance an open criticism of a leader might even be regarded as inappropriate behaviour. The Dutch leadership expert Kets de Vries suggests that each leader needs a "licensed fool" in his/her environment, a person who dares to tell the truth, who holds up a mirror, even if it hurts. The danger of relying on one's own self-image is already demonstrated by the Old Testament proverb "A fool's conduct is right in his own eyes; to listen to advice shows wisdom".