Leadership and Culture in New Zealand: January 2012

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/27814596
Leadership and culture in New Zealand
Article · January 2012

DOI: 10.4324/9780203936665 · Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
51 5,160
1 author:
Jeffrey C. Kennedy
Massey University, Albany, Auckland, New Zealand
49 PUBLICATIONS 945 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
GLOBE Study View project
Careers in cities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey C. Kennedy on 05 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chhokar chapter 12.qxd 11/17/2006 10:02 PM Page 397
12
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Leadership and culture in New Zealand

Jeffrey C. Kennedy
Nanyang Business School, Singapore
Everything that was good from that small, remote country had gone into them—
sunshine and strength, good sense, patience, the versatility of practical men.
—Mulgan (1984, p. 15)
This chapter begins with an overview of New Zealand’s historical development, and the cul-
tural themes that have emerged since European settlement in the 1800s. The GLOBE method-
ology in New Zealand is then described, and New Zealand’s pattern of responses to the
GLOBE cultural scales is discussed. The next section provides a summary of research into
organizational leadership, followed by presentation of the qualitative and quantitative find-
ings of the GLOBE study. The concluding section summarizes the results, provides sugges-
tions for expatriate managers in New Zealand, and identifies limitations of the study.
1. NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY AND CULTURE
New Zealand is a country consisting of two main islands, two thirds the size of California, in
the far corner of the earth’s largest ocean, the Pacific. With a population of 4 million, it has
fewer people than cities such as Bangkok, London, New York, or Sydney.
New Zealand comprises the last islands of any size to be reached by people. The original
inhabitants, the Maori, came from Polynesia around a thousand years ago. About 800 years
later, Britain colonized New Zealand, and waves of immigrants from Britain subsequently
established settlements. Discovery of gold in 1861 led to an influx of miners from the declin-
ing gold fields in Australia and China, followed in 1870 by another wave of assisted immi-
gration from Germany, Scandinavia, and France, as well as the British Isles. The period
between the two world wars saw an increase in immigration from Central Europe, whereas
the period after the Second World War was characterized by a significant inflow from the
Netherlands and Poland. More recently, immigration from Pacific nations (such as Samoa,
Tonga, and Fiji) has increased, and the Asian population has been boosted by new arrivals
from Indo-China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and other neighbors to the north.
In the 1996 census, almost 20% of the population claimed identification with two or more
397
398 KENNEDY
ethnic groups. Around 80% of the population are of European descent, and almost 15% are
Maori. Pacific Islanders and Chinese ethnic groups comprise 6.5% and 2.9% respectively of
the overall population (Statistics New Zealand, 2001).
Although these figures suggest that it makes little sense to talk of one culture for New
Zealand, New Zealanders (self-styled “Kiwis”) will argue strongly for the existence of a
unique identity, for the existence of something that sets them apart from others, a “Kiwi cul-
ture.” Though some of the components of this identity may be found in other cultures and
nations, New Zealanders’ shared experiences and history create a distinctive pattern. In the
following paragraphs, a summary of New Zealand’s historical development provides insights
into some of the key elements of this pattern.
The earliest inhabitants of New Zealand migrated from Polynesia around 1000 AD. The
Maori retained aspects of their Polynesian culture, while adapting to the challenges of a less
tropical and more rugged physical environment. Maori social organization is largely commu-
nal, with social groupings being based on whanau (extended families), hapu (subtribes), and
iwi (tribes), usually based on descent from a common ancestor. Communities were ruled by
chiefs (rangatira), who generally held their position subject to the community remaining sat-
isfied with their continued good performance. The literal meaning of rangatira is “to weave
people together”—a definition of leadership that neatly encapsulates the interdependent and
communal nature of Maori society.
In 1642, a Dutch East India Company expedition under Abel Tasman became the first
recorded European voyagers to discover New Zealand. Detailed European exploration took
place during the 1770s, with several expeditions by the British explorer James Cook. In 1788,
a British prison colony was established across the Tasman Sea in New South Wales (now a
state in present-day Australia), facilitating greater access to New Zealand. American and
British whalers and sealers began to establish bases on the New Zealand coast, and several of
these expanded into larger settlements involved in farming and trade in timber and flax.
A British governor was appointed in 1840, and in February he began gaining Maori sig-
natories to the “Treaty of Waitangi.” This document provided for the indigenous Maori to
cede aspects of sovereignty to Queen Victoria, gaining the rights and privileges of British sub-
jects, while retaining ownership of their land, forests, and fisheries. It is considered by many
to be the founding document of the nation of New Zealand.
Originally an extension of the British colony in New South Wales, New Zealand became
a British colony in its own right in 1841. Increasing numbers of settlers arrived, principally
from Britain, and a number of planned settlements began to take shape. In the four decades
following 1840, the European settler (Pakeha) population grew from 2,000 to almost 500,000.
In contrast, but not coincidentally, the Maori population decreased from around 120,000 in
pre-European times to 42,000 in 1896, causing some commentators to view them as a “dying
race” (Belich, 2001).
Conflict over land and trade, characterized by breaches of trust and Pakeha disregard of
the Treaty of Waitangi, sparked off the New Zealand land wars, a bloody series of military
actions that reached their peak in the 1860s. The Maori became increasingly marginalized as
the Crown confiscated land, and passed legislation that undermined Maori land ownership,
language use, education, and health. Although the Maori had continued to seek redress under
the Treaty, an 1877 court decision declared it to be a “simple nullity.” It was not until the
1970s and 1980s that increasing Maori activism brought the Treaty back into national con-
sciousness. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established to deal with claims against the
Crown under the Treaty, but it was 1985 before the Tribunal was empowered to hear claims
12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 399
dating back to 1840. By 2001, close to U.S.$380 million had been paid or committed to
claimants for historical grievances relating to return of land, fisheries, and cultural resources
(Office of Treaty Settlements, 2001).
As an integral part of this settlement process, different ethnic groups in New Zealand have
had to reassess their identities and relationships with each other. The concept of partnership
inherent in the Treaty has been actualized in legislation and policy. The special standing of
Maori and Pakeha (as signatories to the Treaty) has generated pressure for greater sharing of
power and resources between the two cultures (O’Reilly & Wood, 1991). This trend is not
without its critics. Biculturalism, by definition, relegates cultural groups that have arrived in
New Zealand since 1840 to a lower standing. Moves to empower such groups through a
greater emphasis on multiculturalism are often viewed as attempts to discredit biculturalism,
and the claims of Maori under the Treaty (Jones, Pringle, & Shepherd, 2000). Political and
economic pressures have increasingly turned New Zealand toward a greater reliance on Asian
neighbors, and recent immigration policies encouraging greater Asian investment have served
to further energize the debate over cultural identities.
The rapid growth of New Zealand during its early colonial history affected political and
economic structures. In an arrangement akin to the American federal system, six provincial
governments were established in 1852, but these were abolished in favor of a central govern-
ment in 1876. A centralized approach was needed in order to fund and coordinate the expen-
sive business of developing the new nation’s transport and communications infrastructure.
During the last decades of the 19th century, the central government began to take a much
broader and socially progressive role in running the country. In 1877 it provided for a system
of free, compulsory education. In 1879 it introduced universal male suffrage, and in 1893
New Zealand became the first country in the world to extend the vote to women.
The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was passed in 1894 as a response to pub-
lic concern about exploitative working conditions. It has been described as “one of the most
dramatic contributions New Zealand has made to conceptions of humanitarian democracy”
(Hansen, 1968, p. 58). The 1894 Act provided a compulsory system of state arbitration
“aimed at preventing class conflict by ensuring the workers an adequate share of the national
wealth even as it assured adequate incentive to the employer” (Hansen, 1968, p. 58).
The passing of this Act provides a number of insights into aspects of New Zealand soci-
etal values that are still relevant today. The changes it introduced (together with the earlier
widening of the electoral franchise) reflect a degree of willingness by the well-off to give up
some privilege, wealth, and power. Hansen (1968) argues that this illustrates a gap between
the values of the settlers and those dominant in their countries of origin. In particular, the set-
tlers placed greater emphasis on equality, freedom, and individual dignity: “In comparison
with England and the United States, and even Australia, New Zealand has most actively and
consistently emphasized equalitarianism” (p. 58).
The New Zealand concept of egalitarianism is not restricted to the sense of equal oppor-
tunity; it extends to the idea that people should be considered as equal in all aspects of life:
“Not only should one person not inherit greater life chances than another; none should be
allowed to accumulate a great deal more than another through his own efforts or luck.
Exceptional performances or capacities are deprecated by both individuals in a relationship”
(Hansen, 1968, p. 60). The phrase “tall poppy syndrome” refers to a tendency in New Zealand
to find fault with high achievers, to “cut them down to size” if they act as though their
achievements make them better than anyone else. Few academic research studies have been
conducted on the phenomenon in New Zealand, but Australian studies of contingencies
400 KENNEDY
influencing the tall poppy syndrome are likely to be relevant to New Zealand (see, e.g.,
Feather, 1993, 1994a, 1994b).
Another aspect of egalitarianism was captured in the feeling held by many working people
that they could work their way out of wage dependency and into property ownership on the
basis of their individual effort (Fairburn, 1989). Class barriers to upward mobility did not
exist to the same extent as in Victorian Britain, and there was little requirement for social or
family connections, patronage of the wealthy, intellectual accomplishments, or attendance at
the “right” schools. Deeks, Parker, and Ryan (1994) comment on the structures imported into
New Zealand from English common law (e.g., the master–servant relationship), but note their
comparative weakness. Few households had servants, and there was not the same expectation
of deference and servility in such relationships.
Egalitarianism is also apparent in New Zealand labor law, which until 1991 enforced a
strict system of awards that acted to ensure uniform minimum pay rates and conditions for
the same jobs across all employers. Differentials between skill levels were based on negotia-
tion (by centralized employer and employee organizations) rather than market considerations,
and pay for seniority was far more prevalent than pay for performance.
Economically, New Zealand was dependent almost entirely on agricultural exports. Early
trade in flax and seafood (primarily with Australia) gave way to exports of meat, wool, and
dairy products to Britain. Throughout the period from 1875 until World War II, around 80%
of New Zealand exports were sold to the United Kingdom, and over half its imports came
from that country (Department of Statistics, 1990). Dependence was not limited to the eco-
nomic sphere; many political and social institutions and customs had English origins, and set-
tlers continued to refer to Britain as “Home” with a capital H.
New Zealand participation in the South African War (1899–1902) and World War I (where
103,000 served abroad, from a total population of around 1 million) led to a greater sense of
national identity. New Zealanders compared themselves favorably with their British regular-
force counterparts. In particular, heroic actions of the Australian and New Zealand Army
Corps (ANZACs) at Gallipoli in 1915 are still recalled in annual ceremonies marked by a glo-
rification of Australasian exploits, and a diminution of British (and other Allied) contribu-
tions. The dominant and enduring cultural theme portrays New Zealanders as self-reliant
pioneers, brave and heroic, demonstrating initiative under pressure. These characteristics
were said to engender leadership based on example rather than insistence on “red tape,” by
officers who were “‘democratic’ and modest—one of the boys” (Phillips, 1989, p. 96).
The pioneering-settler history, combined with the dependence on farming, gave rise to a
strong self-image of New Zealand as a country of rugged individualists in a dramatic rural
landscape. The literary incarnation of this theme has a dark side, with an underlying sense of
alienation and of distance. This imagery has been used metaphorically in describing interper-
sonal relationships, and conveys “uncertainties about the influence of the past as well as a
lack of confidence in the future” (Lealand, 1988, pp. 29–30). At a more popular level, the
rural theme is the setting for much New Zealand humor, is used in locally made television
dramas, and is portrayed in many different ways in commercial advertisements (Carter &
Perry, 1987).
Another important element of this cultural archetype is a practical, problem-solving
approach to life. This involves the willingness to tackle problems and take on responsibilities
outside one’s normal role. Innovative solutions using tools or materials at hand are valued.
Kiwis take pride in being able to fix anything with “a piece of No. 8 fencing wire.” Edmund
Hillary was the first person to drive a motorized vehicle overland to the South Pole, and he
used converted farm tractors for the expedition (Booth, 1993). Richard Pearse was a farmer
who attempted powered flight 9 months before the Wright brothers, in an airplane (featuring
a variable pitch propeller, wing flaps, and rear elevator) and petrol engine he constructed with
home made tools from scrap metal and other oddments (New Zealand Department of Internal
Affairs, 1996; Ogilvie, 1973). More recently, John Britten created the world’s fastest four-
stroke superbike using innovative design and materials technology (Bridges & Downs, 2000).
As Holm has noted (1994), this celebrated trait of “Kiwi ingenuity,” of devising innovative,
practical, cost-effective solutions, is now no longer confined to the use of such prosaic mate-
rials as fencing wire.
The lasting strength of this masculine, rural image, of the practical man in tune with the
elements, belies the level of urbanization in New Zealand. A peak of 75% of the population
lived in rural areas in 1871, but this figure has steadily declined. At the most recent census,
85% of New Zealanders lived in urban areas (Statistics New Zealand, 2002).
The introduction of television broadcasts and international passenger jet services (both in
the early 1960s), coupled with ongoing improvements in communications technology, con-
tributed to the ongoing reduction in New Zealand’s isolation and insulation from the rest of
the world (Belich, 2001). Following a period of prosperity during the 1950s and 1960s, New
Zealand entered a period of uncertainty during the 1970s. External factors, such as oil price
shocks, weakened New Zealand’s terms of trade, inflation threatened people’s standard of liv-
ing, government debt increased, and unemployment began to rise. Britain, which had hitherto
been the main market for New Zealand exports, entered the European Economic Community,
and by 1975 was only taking one fifth of the country’s total exports.
Governments during the 1970s responded to these economic problems by providing tax
incentives and financial subsidies for agricultural production, and by increasing the size of
the state sector in the economy. In 1979, Robert Muldoon’s National (center-right) govern-
ment embarked on a multibillion-dollar plan that targeted import substitution through invest-
ment in petrochemical plants (synthetic petrol, natural gas, and oil refining), steel refining,
and aluminum smelting. Known colloquially as “Think Big,” the projects failed to meet their
ambitious economic and employment targets.
A snap election was called in 1984. A Labour (center-left) government gained power, and
immediately faced a foreign-exchange crisis that precipitated a 20% devaluation of the New
Zealand dollar. There was, by this time, widespread agreement that significant economic
restructuring had to be undertaken. The new minister of finance, Roger Douglas, capitalized
on this feeling by initiating a breathtakingly fast-paced, far-reaching program of reform
aimed at reducing the role of the state in favor of a more free-market economy. Although con-
sistent with a global shift toward free-market policies, this “radical experiment in a remote
part of the Pacific Rim” (Yergin & Stanislaw, 1998, p. 140) went further and faster than com-
parable programs in other developed countries.
The reforms encompassed financial deregulation, state sector reorganization, and removal
of subsidies for agriculture and industry. Controls were removed from areas such as foreign-
exchange transactions, interest rates, banking, overseas investments, and the share market.
A goods and services tax was introduced and income tax was reduced and simplified in a
manner that (contrary to the principle of egalitarianism) benefited the rich more than the poor.
Tax concessions, import controls, tariff protections, subsidies, and other restrictions on free
trade were phased out.
Government departments that provided a service were “corporatized”—restructured along
private-sector, market-oriented lines. Telecommunications, air traffic control services,
402 KENNEDY
government research agencies, the postal service, banks, valuation, rail transport, and numerous
other activities were transformed into state-owned enterprises and, in many cases, subse-
quently privatized. Charges were introduced (or increased) for many government services, in
an attempt to limit demand as well as to raise revenue. The National government of 1990
continued the reform process, extending the policy of “user pays” for government services,
making cuts to welfare spending, and restructuring public hospitals along private-sector
corporation lines.
The National government also deregulated the labor market, passing the Employment
Contracts Act in 1991. This Act removed legislative recognition of unions, contributing to a
halving in union membership from 45% of the workforce in 1989 to 23% in 1994 (Belich,
2001). By promoting flexibility in employment arrangements and responsiveness to market
conditions, and through its use of a new vocabulary replacing traditional terms, the Act high-
lighted the transactional, impersonal aspects of the employment exchange (Peel & Inkson,
2000).
The significant shift in New Zealand’s political, social, and economic landscape since
1984 has often clashed with New Zealanders’ underlying cultural values. Though the pio-
neering sense of self-reliance shows in an intolerance of those considered to “bludge” off the
welfare state, the sense of egalitarianism rebels at the thought that some sections of society
are unduly benefiting from reforms, whereas others are being unfairly marginalized. Many
New Zealanders’ sense of “fair play” has been challenged by evidence of poverty and social
exclusion among low-income and Maori households (Stephens, Frater, & Waldegrave, 2000),
of absolute declines in the real income of low-income households (Dalziel, 2002), and of the
widening income gap between rich and poor (Gendall, Robbie, Patchett, & Bright, 2000).
These concerns led to changes in government priorities at the end of the 1990s. The
National government promoted a Code of Social and Family Responsibility, and the Treasury
(the department responsible for economic advice to government) introduced “social cohe-
sion” as an element that should be “at the heart of government policy” (Ansley, 2000, p. 16).
A Labour-led coalition of center-left parties came to power at the end of 1999, and introduced
a raft of changes in areas such as taxation, superannuation, and the health sector, aimed at
restoring social equity. The Employment Contracts Act was replaced by legislation that pro-
moted the role of unions and collective bargaining, and imposed a duty of “good faith” on
parties in their employment negotiations.
Foreign Policy
Following World War II, New Zealand’s identification with Britain as the “Mother Country”
weakened. The United States protected New Zealand in the Pacific, whereas most New
Zealand troops were fighting in the Mediterranean theater. Over 100,000 Americans were sta-
tioned in New Zealand during latter stages of the war, and in the following decades New
Zealand’s foreign policy became more aligned with that of the United States. New Zealand
signed the ANZUS security treaty with Australia and the United States in 1952, and fought
alongside both countries in Korea and Vietnam. Since 1971, defense ties with Asian countries
have been further reinforced by New Zealand’s active participation as a member (with
Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom) of the Five Power Defense
Arrangements (FPDA).
New Zealand is still supportive of traditional allies, offering military support in the
Falklands campaign (1982), in the Persian Gulf War (1991), and in Afghanistan (2001).
Increasingly, however, the military orientation is toward peacekeeping, with New Zealand
personnel having been deployed with UN peacekeeping or mine-clearing missions to East

Timor (the largest commitment of troops since the Korean War), the former Yugoslavia, the
Middle East, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Bougainville, Laos, and other regions. In 2000,
31% of the Army was committed to UN operations, and in recent years the Defense Force’s
strike capacity has been reduced by disbanding the air combat force, whereas emphasis is
being given to modernizing transport and maritime surveillance roles (Hughes, 2001;
Ministry of Defense, 2001; New Zealand Government, 2001).
New Zealand is now more prepared to take an individual stand on issues rather than uncrit-
ically adopt the views of Britain or the United States. A high-profile example was the 1984
Labour government’s introduction of a nuclear-prohibition policy in the face of considerable
opposition from Western allies. Despite pressure from the United States (including cuts in
military cooperation, suspension of the ANZUS treaty, and a downgrading of New Zealand’s
diplomatic status) the policy passed into law in 1987 (Ware & Dewes, 2000). This policy
gained momentum largely because of concern at the effects of ongoing nuclear testing in the
Pacific, New Zealand’s “back yard.” It illustrates how New Zealand increasingly views its
sphere of influence as lying in the southwest Pacific. This shift in political orientation has also
led to new themes for our cultural identity. The European linkage is weaker, and a renaissance
in Maori culture and traditions coupled with acknowledgment of New Zealand’s geographic
location, is creating a new identity as a “self-confident, multicultural Pacific nation”
(Lealand, 1988).
It is clear from this brief overview that dramatic shifts have taken place in New
Zealanders’ conception of their place in the world. The country has moved from dependence
to independence, from a Euro-focused worldview toward one centered more on the Asia-
Pacific region. It should also be apparent that the dominant cultural themes are not truly rep-
resentative of the diverse population. Many of the themes are masculine in origin, with
pioneering, rural, and military provenances. The perspectives of women and Maori are under-
represented. Similarly, women and Maori are underrepresented in management within New
Zealand organizations. In common with the cultural themes presented in this section, the
GLOBE research discussed in the next section reflects a primarily male (and New Zealand
European) perspective. This does not make the perspective any less important, but it serves
to delimit it.
2. THE GLOBE STUDY—SOCIETAL CULTURE
As described in the first chapter in this volume, the GLOBE project used both quantitative
and qualitative methods to gather data on cultural values and perceptions of effective leader
behaviors. The following section reports results from the surveyed middle managers’ ratings
of New Zealand society in terms of the GLOBE dimensions, followed by a discussion incor-
porating additional material from public information and observations.
In line with the overall GLOBE methodology, the questionnaire was distributed to middle
managers in business organizations operating in three different industries: finance (N = 69),
food processing (N = 53) and telecommunications (N = 62). A description of each industry is
provided in the Appendix. Personal contact was used to ensure close to 100% return rates and,
in order to increase representativeness of the sample, only four to six questionnaires were
completed within each company or business unit.
Key demographic characteristics of the sample of 184 managers can be summarized as
follows:
404 KENNEDY
• Gender: 79% of the respondents were male, and 21% female.

• Age: The age of respondents ranged between 22 and 63, with a median of 38 years.
• New Zealand residence: 79% had lived in New Zealand all their life, whereas 16% had
spent more than 3 years out of the country.
• Working experience: The full-time working experience of the sample ranged between 2
and 45 years with a median of 20 years, and with 8 years being the median for holding
a management position. Years spent with the current employer ranged from less than 1
through to a maximum of 41, with a median of 11 years. Thirty-eight percent had worked
for a multinational corporation, either in New Zealand or overseas.
• Staff: The median number of people directly reporting to the manager was 5, with only
9% of the sample having more than 10 subordinates. The maximum number of levels
from the manager to his or her CEO was four, with a median of two.
The GLOBE study included a quantitative assessment of societal cultural values, seeking
information on the extent to which values are reflected in current practices in society (“As
Is”) and the emphasis that respondents felt should be given to each value (“Should Be”).
Details on these measures can be found in the introductory chapter. Table 12.1 presents the
results for New Zealand in terms of absolute scores (on a rating scale from 1 to 7) and com-
parative rankings with other countries on the GLOBE cultural dimensions.
In considering the current situation (“As Is”), New Zealand ranked in the highest 20% of
countries on the dimensions of Performance Orientation (Rank 5), Institutional Collectivism
(Rank 5) and Uncertainty Avoidance (Rank 12). In an international context, New Zealand
therefore stands out as being a society that places importance on high standards of perfor-
mance, while supporting practices that encourage collective distribution of resources and
TABLE 12.1
Results for New Zealand on the Nine GLOBE Cultural Dimensions, Society Level
“As Is” Ratings “Should Be” Ratings
Cultural Dimension Scoreb Bandc (Rank) Scoreb Band (Rank)c Difference
Institutional Collectivism 4.81 Ae (5) 4.20 Ce (51) –0.61

e f
Uncertainty Avoidance 4.75 A (12) 4.10 C (48) –0.65
Performance Orientation 4.72 Ad (5) 5.90 Bf (34) 1.18
e f
Power Distance 4.89 B (47) 3.53 A (3) –1.36
Humane Orientation 4.32 Be (19) 4.49 Ef (61) 0.17
a d e
Gender Egalitarianism 3.22 B (38) 4.23 B (47) 1.01
In-Group Collectivism 3.67 Cd (59) 6.21 Ad (3) 2.54
Future Orientation 3.47 Ce (48) 5.54 Be (31) 2.07
Assertiveness 3.42 Cd (60) 3.54 Bd (41) 0.12
a
Low = male oriented. bCountry mean on a 7-point scale (range 1 to 7). cRepresents band of countries New Zealand
falls into (from a high of A to a low of C, D, or E); bands identify meaningful differences between groups of countries
(cf. Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe, 2004). The number in parentheses is New Zealand’s rank order out of the 61 countries.
d
Group span ranges from A to C. eGroup span ranges from A to D. fGroup span ranges from A to E.
collective action. It is also characterized by a reliance on social norms, rules, and procedures
to reduce unpredictability and uncertainty.
In contrast, it ranked at the low end of the sample in regard to Power Distance (Rank 47),
Future Orientation (Rank 48), In-Group Collectivism (Rank 59), and Assertiveness (Rank
61). These rankings indicate that New Zealand society values egalitarianism more highly than
most other countries in the sample, and is second only to Sweden in the importance placed
on individualism—on independence as opposed to family cohesiveness and loyalty. The
emphasis on planning or investing for the future and willingness to delay gratification is
lower than in most countries. Finally, New Zealand managers show one of the lowest levels
of acceptance of assertiveness, confrontation, and aggression in relationships with others;
only Swedish managers rated this dimension lower.
Comparison of New Zealand’s “As Is” scores with “Should Be” scores indicates a desire
for change in several areas. The managers in the sample expressed a strong desire to place
much more emphasis on values consistent with In-Group Collectivism, increasing the rating
given to this dimension by 2.54 (on a 7-point scale), producing the third-highest “Should Be”
rating of all countries. They also wanted to see a much greater emphasis on Future
Orientation, lifting the rating given to this dimension by 2.07, and changing the “As Is” rank-
ing of 48 to a “Should Be” ranking of 31. Although there was a desire for further emphasis
on Performance Orientation, other countries sought to increase more, and New Zealand’s
“Should Be” ranking dropped back to 34.
Though New Zealand managers reported a low level of Power Distance, and wanted to see
emphasis on this value further reduced, managers in most other countries wanted an even
larger reduction in Power Distance. As a result, New Zealand ranks highly in regard to the
“Should Be” value of Power Distance (Rank 3). This suggests that New Zealand managers
are, in comparative terms, reasonably satisfied with existing levels of Power Distance.
The discussion of the dominant cultural themes in New Zealand indicates the emphasis
placed on male views of society. The majority of survey respondents were male; they
acknowledged that New Zealand society is male oriented, and expressed a desire to see a
greater shift toward a more gender-balanced orientation.
In regard to Humane Orientation, the managers saw New Zealand as being around the mid-
point of the scale, and expressed little desire to shift from this position. Most other countries
felt they needed to emphasize this dimension more, and as a result the New Zealand ranking
shifted from 19 (“As Is”) to 61 (“Should Be”).
The following paragraphs explore these findings, using examples from public sources,
interviews, and observations.
Institutional Collectivism. An example of New Zealanders’ concern for collective inter-

ests comes from a recent survey undertaken as part of a global study of social policy issues
(Gendall et al., 2000). Most of the respondents were in favor of a progressive tax system, with
70% believing that taxes on those with low incomes are too high. Large proportions of the
sample were in favor of increased government spending on health (90%), education (85%),
assistance to the unemployed (60%), and pensions (60%), even if this meant an increase in
taxes.
New Zealand’s long history of a collective approach toward workplace bargaining is also
consistent with this value. For almost a century prior to 1991, employment conditions for dif-
ferent classes of work were determined by comprehensive collective bargaining between
employer and union representatives, resulting in a binding agreement known as an “Award.”
406 KENNEDY
The shift to an individualistic, contractual focus (with the 1991 Employment Contracts Act)
has now been reversed with legislation that explicitly encourages collective bargaining
(Employment Relations Act, 2000).
Uncertainty Avoidance. Hofstede ranks New Zealand as 39 out of 53 countries on his

measure of Uncertainty Avoidance (2001, Exhibit 4.1). As discussed by Hanges and Dickson
(2004), the Hofstede scale corresponds to the GLOBE values (“Should Be”) scale, where
New Zealand is also ranked in the bottom quartile. In terms of practice (“As Is”), however,
New Zealand is ranked in the highest quartile of countries. This scale includes items such as
the extent to which laws or rules exist to cover most situations, the tendency for people to lead
structured lives, and the relative emphasis on orderliness and consistency.
Writers have often attacked the pressure for conformity in New Zealand. Charles Brasch
(quoted in Geraets, 1984, p. 81) writes of “the pressure of conformity.” Author Dan Davin
vividly captures elements of the emphasis on structured lives and consistency (1984, p. 105):
“In New Zealand everyone knows everyone more or less: those you don’t know personally
you might just as well because they’re bound to be very like the people you know already; or
think you know, because of course everyone’s different deep down but in New Zealand the
stereotype that controls what you can say or be seen to do is very strong.” The New Zealand
Survey of Values found that of a list of six important life qualities (comfort and prosperity,
excitement, security and stability, accomplishing things, being respected, salvation) security
was ranked first, accomplishing things second, and comfort/prosperity third. In regard to
important job characteristics, job security and good pay were ranked at the top of the list
(Gold & Webster, 1990).
In a recent international study of entrepreneurship (Frederick & Carswell, 2001), New
Zealand ranked 15th out of 29 countries in tolerance for uncertainty—further evidence
that the Hofstede work underestimated the extent of Uncertainty Avoidance in New Zealand
society.
A comprehensive state-funded accident insurance and rehabilitation scheme reduces
uncertainty for all New Zealanders by removing the right to sue for personal injury, in return
for providing universal coverage for injuries. Many commentators have argued that govern-
ment has been too involved in the detailed regulation of everyday life (“regulomania” in the
words of James Belich, 2001) and of business activities (Easton, 2000).
It is possible that uncertainty engendered by the dramatic economic restructuring of the
past 20 years has created a desire for greater stability. Weariness with change is setting in, and
this may be reflected in a desire for greater certainty and predictability (Ansley, 2000).
However, the existence of a “nanny state” creating security for its people “from cradle to
grave” appears to be congruent with underlying values in New Zealand, and with the com-
paratively high ranking on Uncertainty Avoidance.
Performance Orientation. New Zealanders have always taken pride in the world-beating
achievements of people from such a small (in population terms) country. New Zealanders
have been the first to split the atom (Ernest Rutherford), to climb Mt. Everest (Ed Hillary), to
fly direct from England to New Zealand (Jean Batten). Twenty years ago, V. S. Naipaul wrote
of the contribution New Zealand has made to the world, proclaiming that “more gifted men
and women have come from its population of three million than from the 23 millions of
Argentines” (1980, p. 153). A comparative study of national pride in 23 countries revealed
that New Zealanders ranked second in the amount of pride they displayed in their country’s
sporting achievements, and third in pride in science/technology and arts and literature (Smith &
Jarkko, 2001).
Expectations and encouragement for high performance are evident particularly in the
sporting arena, where New Zealanders have performed creditably on the international stage
in athletics, yachting, rugby, softball, rowing, swimming, and other events. Athletes have very
high expectations placed on them by the public, and are severely criticized when their per-
formance drops.
In the business arena, rapid deregulation of the economy from the mid-1980s has opened
domestic firms to international competition, and removed almost all governmental subsidies
and protection. New Zealand was recently ranked first out of 47 countries on the criteria of
lack of protectionism, lack of price controls, and accessibility to foreign financial institutions
(IMD International, 2000). These factors, together with geographical isolation from most
trading partners, have put pressure on companies to lift their performance to (or above) inter-
national standards.
This emphasis on performance may seem at odds with the “tall poppy syndrome” dis-
cussed in the opening section of this chapter, but an important issue is the attitude displayed
by the high achiever. A contributor to an Internet discussion on the topic expressed it this way:
“New Zealanders do not resent success; what we do despise, and will cut down to size, is the
braggart and the show-off. You can be as successful as you like and you will be respected for
it, but the moment that you let it go to your head and start acting as if you are better or more
important than other people … you will lose our respect” (Watson, 1994).
There is an interesting tension between Performance Orientation and Egalitarianism. A
high performer, by definition, stands out from the crowd. McKinlay (2000) discusses the
experience of New Zealand investment bankers, who note a reluctance in New Zealand
entrepreneurs to build their personal wealth beyond the U.S.$5million–$10 million mark.
Many seem concerned that it is not socially acceptable to build major private wealth (even
though it may lead to significant employment and wealth gains for other New Zealanders as
well). The market-based reforms of the 1980s and 1990s encouraged a “winner take all” men-
tality that sits uneasily with many New Zealanders. The chief executive of a government
department recently scrapped a performance-pay system on the grounds that it was unfair,
proving more generous for those in senior positions than for those at the bottom (Watkins,
2003). Such concerns may underlie the lower ranking of New Zealand managers on the
“Should Be” Performance Orientation scale.
Assertiveness. At the other end of the scale, New Zealand scored second-lowest of all
countries on the Assertiveness dimension. The Survey of Values, in looking at the values
emphasized in child training, found a high level of national consensus regarding the impor-
tance of pleasantness, politeness, and good manners (Gold & Webster, 1990).
It is difficult to locate objective international comparisons of business practice that might
illustrate this dimension further, but there are many examples of New Zealanders believing
they lack the aggression of international trading partners. This is well illustrated by compar-
isons with our closest neighbor, Australia—a nation that shares many historical experiences
and cultural attributes with New Zealand. On the GLOBE cultural scales, the biggest absolute
scale difference between the two countries is on Assertiveness, where Australia ranks 22nd
with a rating of 4.28, compared to New Zealand’s score of 3.42 and rank of 60. Consistent
with this difference, Australians are viewed by many New Zealanders as more aggressive in
sporting, political, and business domains. High-profile examples include their willingness to
408 KENNEDY
exploit a loophole in the rules to ensure they won a cricket match (using an underarm bowl),
the Australian government’s reneging on an “open skies” deal so as to deny New Zealand’s
national airline access to the Australian domestic air travel market, the Australian Rugby
Union’s success in gaining full hosting rights for the 2003 rugby world cup, and the
aggressive tactics used by Australian airline Qantas in its efforts to dominate the trans-
Tasman travel market.
In contrast with the low Assertiveness ranking, values of aggressiveness, competitiveness,
and domination are commonly portrayed and encouraged by “male” sports in New Zealand
(Gidlow, Perkins, Cushman, & Simpson, 1994). The dominant sporting code in New Zealand
is rugby, a physically aggressive variety of football played by teams of 15, without the bene-
fit of helmets or padding. Perhaps its popularity is partly due to the outlet it provides for
socially acceptable aggression, whether by participants or (vicariously) by spectators.
In-Group Collectivism. The middle manager sample also rated New Zealand very low
on In-Group Collectivism. Though the average score of 3.67 is just below the scale midpoint,
it is the third-lowest rating of all countries in the sample. It contrasts markedly with the high
ranking (fifth) on Institutional Collectivism. This pattern of high Institutional Collectivism
and very low In-Group Collectivism is also found in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.
There is a theme of independence running through the dominant New Zealand European
cultural archetypes, and this carries over into attitudes toward the family. Young New
Zealanders are keen to leave the family, to make their own way, often starting with a period
of “OE” (overseas experience). It is uncommon for adults (whether single or married) to share
their home with older generations. State support (in the form of universal superannuation,
unemployment benefits, payments to single mothers, study allowances, sickness benefits,
etc.) reduces the financial obligation on family members to support relatives. There may also
be a historical pattern, with those immigrants willing to come to New Zealand being the ones
who were more prepared to sever family ties with relatives left behind.
In a critical commentary on the insular nature of many New Zealand families, popular
author Gordon McLauchlan suggested that there are “few secure traditional extensions to the
nuclear group, either sideways to brothers, sisters, cousins or through marriage to in-laws;
and there are no extensions vertically to those who have gone before and who will come after;
so that we have no identity in place or time” (McLauchlan & Morgan, 1976, p. 40).
Several statistics reflect the lack of closeness and support prevailing in many New Zealand
families—New Zealand has the highest level of youth suicide among comparable OECD
countries (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 2002), and one of the highest rates of teenage births of
any industrialized country (Ministry of Youth Affairs, 1998). Though most dependent
children under 18 years of age live with two parents, the proportion has declined over time,
from 84% in 1986, to 76% in 1996. Over the same period, the proportion of dependent
children living in mother-only families rose from 14% to 21%, and the proportion living in
father-only families increased from 2% to 3% (Child, Youth and Family, 1999).
Hofstede’s study (conducted in the 1970s) ranked New Zealand as sixth out of 53 coun-
tries on his individualism scale (2001). In a study conducted after the GLOBE data were
gathered, New Zealand ranked second out of 23 countries using the Hofstede measure of indi-
vidualism (Spector et al., 2001). Given the communal nature of traditional Maori society, it
is important to note that this stable, distinctive characteristic of individualism is a mark of the
dominant New Zealand European culture. Geographic isolation, the separation of pioneer set-
tlers from families in their homeland, and the literary themes of “man alone” all resonate with
the importance of “the independent self” and a subordination of relatedness needs to the
primacy of individual goals and preferences.
The desire for greater emphasis on In-Group Collectivism indicated by the “Should Be”
score reflects a yearning for a sense of family connectedness. This desire may also be under-
lying the trend toward greater acceptance and introduction of “family friendly” workplace
policies (Rotherham, 1998).
Power Distance. New Zealand’s low Power Distance rating is consistent with the key
theme of egalitarianism emerging from the discussion of New Zealand culture in the intro-
duction to this chapter. It would be wrong to categorize New Zealand as classless, but there
is an inherent dislike of elitism. Historian Keith Sinclair talks of the “common colonist’s”
“distaste for privilege” and how this “distinguished the New Zealanders even among the peo-
ples of America and Australia.” Although acknowledging that New Zealand is not a classless
society, he claims that it “must be more nearly classless … than any advanced society in the
world. Some people are richer than others, but wealth carries no great prestige and no pre-
rogative of leadership” (Sinclair, 1969, p. 285).
In the years since those words were written, the gap between rich and poor has increased
significantly (Ansley, 2000). Power Distance is positively correlated with the size of the
salary range between the top and bottom of organizations across different societies (Hofstede,
2001). As would be expected in a country with low Power Distance, 80% of New Zealanders
consider the increasing differences in wealth to be “unacceptable” (Gold & Webster, 1990),
and a majority would like to see income gaps reduced (Gendall et al., 2000).
Hierarchical differences between levels in New Zealand organizations are not as clearly
marked by symbols or language as they are in higher Power Distance cultures. Use of
first names is common, even between senior managers and junior employees, and extreme
perks of office (such as executive washrooms, elevators, or dining rooms) are almost nonex-
istent. In universities, students usually address academic staff by first names. In one New
Zealand University, staff teaching into a degree program in Malaysia (a higher Power
Distance country) were asked not to encourage the students to use first names as it made them
uncomfortable.
Future Orientation. New Zealand’s rating on this dimension ranks 48th among the
surveyed countries. The average of 3.47 suggests that we place a comparatively low empha-
sis on future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying
gratification.
New Zealand household saving is low by OECD standards, and has been falling in recent
years (Savage, 1999). Saving requires a person or household to forego the pleasure of current
expenditure in order to provide for some possible event in the future, and savings decisions
are therefore partly a reflection of Future Orientation. Historically New Zealand has had a
comprehensive social welfare scheme financed from general taxation; wage and salary earn-
ers are not required to pay regular contributions to a social security fund. This reduces the
risks associated with nonsaving, and may encourage a “live for the day” mentality. In
September 1997, a referendum on the possible introduction of a compulsory retirement sav-
ings scheme was held. Eighty percent of eligible voters participated, with over 90% voting
against the scheme.
In an organizational context, recent surveys suggest that New Zealand companies are not
paying sufficient attention to long-term planning. A study of manufacturing companies found
410 KENNEDY
evidence of a short-term orientation among many of the sampled firms (Knuckey, Leung-Wai,
& Meskill, 1999). A more comprehensive survey of all sectors concluded that managers
were excessively focused on short-term goals and need to take a longer-term strategic view
in order to achieve sustainable adaptation (Wevers International Ltd/Centre for Corporate
Strategy, 1996).
These examples are consistent with the relatively low rating given to Future Orientation
by the managers in our sample. They also suggest the reasons for such a high emphasis being
given to the “Should Be” rating. Over recent years, increasing public attention has been paid
to the inadequacy of most households’ preparations for the future. Demographic trends and
government reductions in social security provision have highlighted the need for individuals
to adopt a longer time horizon for their planning, whereas economic deregulation and
removal of subsidies have created similar pressures on businesses.
Humane Orientation. New Zealand’s low “Should Be” ranking on the Humane Orientation
scale may be a reflection of complacency with its past reputation as a welfare state. The coun-
try introduced its first state-funded welfare assistance (an old-age pension) in 1898, extending
into additional programs that culminated in the 1938 Social Security Act, “a bold and daring
experiment that deeply influenced the course of legislation in other countries” (Briggs, 1965,
p. 67). Such initiatives gave New Zealand a deserved reputation as one of the leading welfare
states in the immediate postwar period.
Contrasting with this early emphasis on social security is the cultural theme of indepen-
dence, and the value placed on people achieving success through their own efforts. This per-
spective has resulted in people on welfare payments being criticized as lazy, and labeled as
“dole bludgers.” Gold and Webster’s survey (1990) asked for perceptions of whom or what
is responsible for poverty and deprivation in New Zealand. Although most respondents attrib-
uted it to external causes (unfairness, injustice, bad luck), the single most popular explana-
tion was laziness. The authors concluded that “sympathy for the poor and deprived in New
Zealand is not as deeply rooted as it might be” (p. 19).
New Zealand’s position as a leading welfare state has declined since the 1960s. In the mid-
1980s, the government reformed the welfare system, shifting from one of universal assistance
to one that provided a “safety net” for those in the greatest of need, and that encouraged self-
sufficiency (Statistics New Zealand, 1995). In the period since completion of the GLOBE data
gathering, New Zealanders have become more concerned about the evidence of increasing
social disadvantage, and there is greater support for more government spending on core welfare
state activities. However, this humane attitude is kept in check by concern regarding possible
negative effects of welfare on self-reliance, and on the willingness of people to help each
other—40% of New Zealand respondents to the International Social Survey Programme study
on social equality believed that less generous welfare benefits would encourage people to “stand
on their own two feet” (Gendall et al., 2000). The GLOBE respondents gave very similar rat-
ings to both the “As Is” and “Should Be” Humane Orientation scales, suggesting satisfaction
with the current balance between support for the needy and encouragement of independence.
Themes
The GLOBE societal culture scales present a pattern that is consistent with the preceding dis-
cussion of underlying cultural themes in New Zealand. The importance of Egalitarianism is
captured in the low rating given to Power Distance. When coupled with Performance
Orientation, it becomes clear that people are more likely to be judged on their accomplishments
than by their background. The cultural emphasis on performance also makes it clear that New
Zealanders like winners, but the winners need to be humble. Assertiveness, especially if it
shades into aggressiveness in pursuit of personal goals, is unwelcome. People take pride in
belonging to the wider collective, to social groupings or the country as a whole. However,
there is a sense of dislocation, of being unhappy at a perceived lack of family collectiveness,
which echoes some of the literary cultural themes of “man alone.” Finally, the independence
of the pioneer, the expectation of having to make one’s own way, lives on in the responses to
the Humane Orientation scale.
Several of these themes underpin the culturally implicit theory of leadership held by New
Zealanders. The next section begins with an overview of organizational leadership research
in New Zealand, and is followed by discussion of the GLOBE leadership study.
3. LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN NEW ZEALAND
During the 1970s George Hines, a psychologist at Victoria University of Wellington, carried
out a program of survey research into the background, business practices, motivation, and
psychological characteristics of over 2,400 New Zealand managers (Hines, 1973). He
reported that New Zealand managers placed a significantly greater weight on interpersonal
relationships than did North American and European managers. He suggested that this find-
ing related to the small size of New Zealand companies, the opportunities for frequent inter-
actions between people at all levels, and the lack of arbitrary class differences. Individuality
and independence were valued, together with an emphasis on performance rather than social
status. New Zealand (at that time) also lacked large salary differentials within organizations.
In small organizations, employees know managers personally, decisions are generally con-
veyed face-to-face, and there is now here to hide when problems arise. Sir James Wattie,
founder of Wattie’s Foods, is a good example of these attributes. As chief executive, he used
to eat in the staff cafeteria, and placed a high value on the information he gained from infor-
mal interaction with staff at all levels in his factory. This approach contrasts markedly with
the more formal, individualistic culture imposed on Wattie’s by the multinational Heinz com-
pany, after it acquired Wattie’s in 1992 (Irving & Inkson, 1998).
Hines’s survey was consistent with other research that had found New Zealand managers
to be conservative in outlook (Wilson & Patterson, 1968). He commented on the association
between conservatism and other factors, including adherence to rules and regulations, resis-
tance to change, compliance with existing norms, and a preference for stability, predictabil-
ity, and security—attributes consistent with a high level of Uncertainty Avoidance.
Prior to 1984, it may have been possible for managers in New Zealand’s protected econ-
omy to avoid uncertainty; after 1984 it was no longer an option. The qualities reflected by
leadership research and practice during the 1970s would not suffice for the 1990s or beyond.
The sense of sharp transition, of a watershed in the demands on leaders, is clear:
If our past existence had created an environment where the basic parameters for leadership were
set, where the solid virtues, sound administration, transactional leadership, and strong control
were sufficient for success, then the new environment has changed things irrevocably. Qualities
previously unnecessary in New Zealand management suddenly became critical not for spectacu-
lar success, but for mere survival: innovation, lateral thinking, vision, entrepreneurship (and its
organization corollary, “intrapreneurship”), networking ability, international orientation.
(Inkson & Henshall, 1990, p. 164)
412 KENNEDY
Transformational leaders became more visible at the helm of many New Zealand companies
(Inkson, Henshall, Marsh, & Ellis, 1986), the prevalence of “high commitment” management
practices increased (Hamilton, Dakin, & Loney, 1992), and research began to indicate the
increased value subordinates placed on transformational behaviors (Singer, 1985).
In 1993 and 1996, the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) published
studies that examined the ways in which New Zealand private-sector management had
adjusted to the structural changes and deregulation of the preceding decade (Campbell-Hunt
& Corbett, 1996; Campbell-Hunt, Harper, & Hamilton, 1993). These reports found evidence
of increasing emphasis on teamwork, training, and performance rewards (with a dramatic
increase in the use of performance-linked pay systems since the introduction of the
Employment Contracts Act in 1991). Consequently, longer-term issues such as career devel-
opment, labor planning, and the link between training policy and strategic planning received
insufficient attention. This pattern is consistent with the high Performance Orientation and
low Future Orientation scores of New Zealand managers.
The NZIER studies revealed that managers showed increasing awareness of the need to
create more flexible organization structures, to improve the communication of their vision to
staff, and to involve people more effectively in the development of strategy. Evidence sug-
gested, however, that many managers did not know how to transform this awareness into
action (Frater, Stuart, Rose, & Andrews, 1995; Wevers & Company, 1994). Campbell-Hunt
and Corbett concluded, in 1996, that New Zealand managers were “only part-way through a
change in style from a hierarchical, ‘command and control’ mentality to an empowering, ‘del-
egate and coach’ style” (p. 98).
Rippin (1995) explored managerial behavior in more depth, seeking to identify the char-
acteristics of effective New Zealand managers. She used the repertory grid technique
(Stewart, 1981) to elicit constructs underlying chief executives’ perceptions of the effective-
ness of senior managers. The broad pattern of competencies emerging from her study was
similar to that identified in studies carried out in other countries. One difference she noted
was the high contribution of perceived technical skills to judgments of the effectiveness of
senior managers—something she suggested might be a function of the New Zealand culture,
the “Colonial spirit” (p. 133).
Rippin (1995) developed a questionnaire containing over 300 items to measure the con-
structs identified in the repertory grid study, and administered it to 185 senior managers.
Analysis revealed a six-factor structure, with the first factor (Interpersonal Skills) accounting
for 40% of the variance. The 20 highest loading items on this factor reveal a pattern of inclu-
sive, egalitarian, and participative attributes. Key words from these items include: takes a
genuine interest in people, makes people feel at ease, is consultative, sensitive, empathetic,
accessible, treats all people as their equal, is compassionate, can laugh at themselves, is a
team player, has a harmonizing effect, and has a basic respect for all staff in the organization
(1995, p. 152).
Cammock, Nilikant, and Dakin (1995) also used repertory grid interviews to develop items
for a questionnaire survey exploring perceptions of managerial effectiveness. They located
their study in a large New Zealand public-sector organization and interviewed staff from all
levels, not just managers. The resulting model placed more emphasis on personal character-
istics (as opposed to skilled behavior) than most (non-New Zealand) competency studies.
Two broad factors (Conceptual and Interpersonal) emerged. Effective managers were seen
as positive, visible, approachable, friendly, supportive, consultative, willing to learn from
others, and honest in their dealings with staff. In regard to conceptual abilities, they instilled
a clear sense of purpose, constantly looked for new approaches, considered the long term, did
not get bogged down in detail, had a good sense of priorities, and displayed high levels of
drive and enthusiasm (p. 456).
In both of these studies (Cammock et al., 1995; Rippin, 1995), the researchers created
leadership models based on the responses of their subjects. In contrast, Parry and Proctor
(2000) surveyed over 1,300 private- and public-sector managers in New Zealand using stan-
dard leadership and organizational questionnaires, including the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and the Organization Description Questionnaire
(ODQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The managers scored at a generally high level in regard to the
display of transformational leadership behaviors (in line with norms for other Western coun-
tries). They differed, however, in displaying more “contingent reward” behaviors than man-
agers in similar countries. These behaviors are transactional in nature, focusing on an
exchange between leader and follower, rather than the development of shared values and
vision. Parry and Proctor viewed this comparatively high use of contingent reward by New
Zealand managers as a cause for concern. They speculated that the 15 years of economic
reform (since 1984) may “have created a generation of very transactionally-minded and con-
tractually-oriented people” (p. 32)—a view that is consistent with Peel and Inkson’s (2000)
evidence for a shift from relational to transactional employment contracts during this period.
Contemporary leadership research is beginning to reflect the “Maori renaissance,” emerg-
ing Pacific cultural themes, and the increasing diversity of New Zealand society. With the
Treaty of Waitangi settlements leading to greater Maori investment in property, tourism, and
fishing industries, there is an increased interest in Maori leadership (Tapsell, 1997). Henry (as
cited in Jones et al., 2000) identified a range of leadership styles adopted by Maori women.
These include, for example, kuia (wise elder-grandmother) authoritarian leadership, and
whaea (mother) guiding and leading from behind. These styles stem from family position and
traditional precolonial leadership roles, and were distinct from the leadership roles identified
in a study of Pakeha women-run organizations. Pfeifer and Love (2004) compared Maori and
Pakeha leadership styles using the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and found evidence of dif-
ferences in perceptions of leadership styles between these two cultural groups. Ah Chong and
Thomas (1997) compared Pacific Island and Pakeha leaders, and identified style variations
attributable to cultural differences (especially in regard to task-oriented behaviors).
These emergent themes are likely to influence the mainstream model of business leader-
ship in New Zealand over the coming years. The GLOBE methodology lends itself to explo-
rations of culture- and gender-based variations, and Pfeifer (2005) has used the framework to
identify similarities and differences in how Maori and Pakeha followers perceived the out-
standing leadership behavior of culturally similar leaders.
The following section assesses the predominant implicit leadership theory currently held
by New Zealand middle managers.
4. THE GLOBE STUDY—LEADERSHIP
The leadership component of the GLOBE study in New Zealand consisted of interviews, a
focus group, media analysis, and questionnaire-based data collection. The focus group was
conducted with 10 participants, including 2 women. Five were chief executives of companies
(representing food, manufacturing, finance, and the service sectors), three were company
directors with previous management experience, one was a human resource manager, and one
414 KENNEDY
was a partner in a financial services firm. Introductory comments by the facilitator set the
scene, encouraging the participants to discuss their views of leadership, contrasts between
management and leadership, and aspects of leadership unique to New Zealand. Minimal guid-
ance was provided during the discussion, which was tape-recorded and transcribed for sub-
sequent analysis.
Semistructured interviews were conducted with one female and two male senior managers;
the interviews included broad, open-ended questions about the characteristics of effective
leaders, behaviors associated with ineffective leaders, examples of outstanding leaders, and
contrasts between management and leadership. Interviewees were given freedom to discuss
widely around these topics. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and analyzed in order to
identify key themes.
Additional qualitative insights into New Zealand leaders were gained from analysis of
leadership references in print media during a 1-week period at the end of 1997 (Godfrey &
Kennedy, 1998). The sample media comprised two business magazines (Management and
New Zealand Business), two business weekly newspapers (The Independent and National
Business Review), and three daily newspapers (Auckland’s New Zealand Herald,
Wellington’s Dominion, and Christchurch’s The Press). All references to New Zealand lead-
ers (in political, commercial, and community spheres) were identified and coded, before
being analyzed to identify emergent themes.
Finally, the GLOBE quantitative leadership scales were administered to 184 managers.
Details of the sample demographics are summarized in the earlier section on the societal cul-
ture survey, whereas development of the questionnaire is described in the first chapter in this
volume.
Focus Groups and Interviews
Similar themes emerged from the focus group and interviews (Fearing, Heyward, Kennedy,
& O’Sullivan, 1995); these are summarized in Table 12.2. Average managers were described
as primarily maintaining the status quo through control and enforcement of existing policies
and procedures. They were considered better managers of things than of people, and some
members of the focus group felt this characteristic was often associated with a weakness in
regard to understanding human nature. They did not have an innate understanding of how to
motivate people, and tended to be ineffective delegators.
More effective managers shared some of these characteristics, but were regarded as will-
ing to question goals, procedures, and processes in order to explore opportunities, and seek
lateral alternatives. They typically had greater people skills, and were able to lead effectively
by example. They were more willing to take risks than were average managers, and could
marshal resources to achieve results over and above routine expectations.
Average managers were viewed as controllers, whereas leaders were more democratic and
team oriented. The focus group was convened shortly after the death of one of New Zealand’s
celebrated war heroes, double–Victoria Cross winner Charles Upham. One of the group par-
ticipants noted that Upham always claimed his team was “very hard to control, but a lot eas-
ier to lead.” This captures the ambivalent feeling many New Zealanders have in regard to
formal restraint and control.
In distinguishing leadership from management, participants also emphasized the impor-
tance of developing a clear vision, and a set of beliefs that are passed on to peers and subor-
dinates. Leaders were seen as high achievers, with their success leavened by humility. New
Zealanders like “humble winners.” Several participants expressed reservations about setting
TABLE 12.2
Manager and Leader Characteristics Identified by Focus Group
Characteristics Reported by Focus Group Participants
Average Manager Above-Average Manager Outstanding Leader

• Concerned with maintenance • Has flair for growth and • Total commitment (“love”)
• Better at managing things opportunity for people
• Policies and procedures • Uses lateral thinking • Articulate and persuasive
• Controller, not expander • Good with people and • Possess high degree of
involves them as a team integrity
• Maintains status quo
• Communicates well • High achiever, both in and
• Regular (e.g., works 9a.m. to outside of work
5p.m.) • Growth oriented: sets some
goals • Charismatic—has the “X”
• Not completely focused factor
• Uncertain about projecting
• Compromises visions and beliefs • Consistent
• Doesn’t fully understand throughout the organization
• Democratic
human nature • Not visionary: works on a
• Trusting of others
• Problems with delegation day-to-day or yearly basis
• Team player
• Patterned • More focused than average
manager • Have strong communication
• Controlled outcome, standard and people skills
requirement • Prepared to take risks to
some extent • Customer oriented
• Leads by example • Humble
• Not afraid of making • Imperfect, but knows own
important decisions weaknesses
• Has better understanding of • Have respect for self
people and the business than • Experienced and well
the average manager
• Pragmatic
• Aims to achieve a result
beyond given expectations
• Uses resources effectively
any leader up as a role model for others, commenting that this could result in the leader “play
acting” or focusing on meeting others’ expectations at the expense of integrity and commit-
ment to their job. Rather than a role model to aspire to, New Zealanders prefer a leader they
can relate to; modesty and quiet confidence are respected. Furthermore, leaders were not
expected to be successful leaders for all time, or in all situations. Charles Upham, for exam-
ple, returned to a farming life after his successful wartime leadership role.
A cluster of traits emerging from the focus group discussion concerned the personal char-
acteristics of modesty, humility, and recognition of one’s own weaknesses, balanced with a
healthy respect for self and others. Outstanding leaders in New Zealand are not self-
absorbed, “cocky,” or bent on Machiavellian control of others. They see their leadership role
as being based in the team, not outside it. They evidence a strong commitment to the value of
416 KENNEDY
teamwork, a willingness to be a “team player” themselves, and to actively contribute their

own efforts and ideas, rather than try to lead from a distance. As one participant noted: “They
get around their troops a lot, they make sure they talk to everybody; they make people really
feel part of a team, as though they’re important. It’s their people skills; they understand the
strengths and weaknesses of the team.”
Media Analysis
A total of 557 data elements (from 320 separate text extracts) were categorized iteratively, start-
ing with fine-grained categories containing only a few items. These were combined progres-
sively into broader groupings in successive rounds, resulting in a final number of 25 categories.
Table 12.3 lists the categories grouped into five main facets of leadership—organization man-
agement, people management, personality, ability, and image. The most frequently represented
categories are listed first in each column whereas categories containing less than six data ele-
ments (equivalent to 1% of the total set) are printed in italics. Categories including elements
referring only to political leaders are labeled (P).
The largest category, representing 30% of the data elements, was that of personality traits.
Within this cluster, the largest subcategory referred to determination, resolve, “stickability”
and perseverance toward accomplishment of goals. Confidence was the second-largest sub-
category, encompassing belief in oneself, and an optimistic outlook. Passion, energy, and
commitment comprised the next cluster of attributes. Several attributes were presented as
being undesirable; these included arrogance, emotionality, panic, and weakness.
The second-largest category (12%) referred to aspects of taking action. Being active,
responsive, and proactive were viewed positively, whereas negative connotations applied to
behaviors such as delaying, reneging on commitments, and becoming complacent.
The next most common category (8%) was strategic management, which included data
elements relating to vision, planning, policy, strategy, and purpose.
TABLE 12.3
Categories Emerging From Media Analysis
Organization People
Management Management Personality Ability Image
Taking action Motivator Traits (30%) Abilities Impression
(12%) management
Communicator Leader style Knowledge and
Strategic understanding Conduct
management (8%) Relationship Realism (P)
builder Worthiness Public image
Development
Team player Information Consistency
Change management
management Director Political
Cultural awareness expediency (P)
Setting ethical Information
standards provider (P) Conceptual
thinking
Note. Categories in italics each contain less than 1% of the total number of text elements. Categories including
elements relating only to political leaders are labeled (P).
The importance of personality traits in describing leaders is consistent with some of

Rippin’s work, in which she found that “the effectiveness of managers is largely assessed on
personality dimensions” (1995, p.190). The nature of the positive and negative evaluations of
traits and behaviors is consistent with New Zealand managers’ endorsement of transforma-
tional leadership characteristics (Parry & Proctor, 2000).
The Leadership Scales
The GLOBE leadership questionnaire asked respondents to rate various leadership behaviors
and traits on a 7-point scale according to the extent they contributed to “outstanding leader-
ship” in New Zealand. Table 12.4 presents the mean score for each of the 21 first-order lead-
ership factors, grouped under their respective second-order factors (in bold). The numbers in
parentheses are New Zealand’s rankings in comparison with the other 61 countries. As with
the cultural scales, countries have been grouped into a number of bands according to their
scale score, and the standard error of difference. Countries within the same band on a scale
do not differ meaningfully from each other on that scale.
Within-Country Comparison. The six second-order factors in Table 12.4 represent cul-
turally generalizable implicit leadership theories (CLTs) that emerged from analysis of the
complete GLOBE data set (Den Hartog et al., 1999; House et al., 1999, 2004). Two of these
CLTs (Charismatic/Value Based and Team Oriented) are universally viewed (in all countries)
as contributors to effective leadership, whereas the Self-Protective CLT is perceived as an
impediment to outstanding leadership. The New Zealand responses are consistent with this
macrolevel pattern—average ratings on scales comprising the first two CLTs are all above the
scale midpoints, whereas Self-Protective scale ratings are all below the midpoint.
In terms of absolute scale values, New Zealand managers gave three scales average ratings
in excess of 6.0 on the 7-point scale: Inspirational, Performance Orientation, and Visionary.
A further two scales (Team Integrator and Decisive) were rated 5.5 or higher. At the low end
Malevolent, Self-centered, Nonparticipative, and Face Saver all had average ratings lower
than 2.4 and were thus seen as seriously inhibiting effective leadership.
At a simple level then, an outstanding leader in New Zealand is seen as a positive, opti-
mistic person who is able to generate confidence, enthusiasm, and excitement among follow-
ers, challenging them to exceed expectations in pursuit of future goals. He or she is a good
communicator, sharing information to ensure common understanding among followers, and
encouraging them to work as an integrated team. The leader must be prepared to make deci-
sions firmly and resolutely, whether based on logic or intuition. This decisiveness needs to be
balanced, however, by recognition of the individual abilities of team members (without
regard to their status); the leader must not be a micromanager, and must be willing to share
the decision making with capable team members. Personal qualities such as irritability, cyni-
cism, conceitedness, or lack of sincerity undermine leadership effectiveness.
Between-Country Comparison. The leadership qualities valued by New Zealanders will

now be compared with other countries in the sample. Within the Charismatic/Value Based CLT,
New Zealanders placed more emphasis on the Inspirational scale than managers from all but
two other countries. This scale picks up items relevant to the leader’s optimism, energy, confi-
dence, and motivation, and his or her ability to inspire these characteristics in followers.
New Zealand is also in the highest band for the Visionary, Decisive, Performance
Orientation, and Humane scales. The first three of these scales were noted in the discussion
418 KENNEDY
TABLE 12.4
New Zealand Leadership Styles
Dimensions- Subdimensions Country GLOBE Within –
Score Band (Rank)a Ranking j
Charismatic/Value Based 5.87 Ci (34) –

Visionary 6.23 Ae (16) 3
Inspirational 6.50 Ae (3) 1
Self-Sacrificial 4.88 Bd (39) 10
Integrity 5.49 Ce (55) 6
Decisive 5.69 Ad (45) 5
Performance Orientation 6.31 Ad (13) 2
Team Oriented 5.44 Dg (57) –
Collaborative Team Oriented 5.21 Bd (50) 8
Team Integrator 5.71 Bd (41) 4
Diplomatic 5.22 Bb (52) 7
Malevolent (Recoded) 1.83 Ce (21) 21
Administratively Competent 4.79 Cc (59) 11
Self-Protective 3.19 Fh (45) –
Self-Centered 2.23 Cd (22) 20
Status-Consciousness 3.56 Cd (55) 16
Conflict Inducer 3.74 Bc (40) 15
Face Saver 2.39 Cd (51) 18
Procedural 3.86 Bd (34) 13
Participative 5.50 Cf (23) –
Autocratic (Recoded) 2.63 Cd (31) 17
Nonparticipative (Recoded) 2.38 Bc (47) 19
Humane 4.78 Ce (37) –
Modesty 4.57 Bc (51) 12
Humane 5.09 Ad (18) 9
Autonomous 3.77 Bd (36) –
Autonomous 3.77 Bc (36) 14
Note Second-order leadership factors are shown in bold, with the corresponding first-order scales grouped below
them (in italics).
a
Countries are grouped into clusters, based on the standard error of difference for each scale. Countries within each
cluster do not differ meaningfully from each other on the scale. Cluster A > Cluster B (> C > D > E > F). Each clus-
ter spans 2 standard errors of differences; as the standard error of difference varies across the scales, the number of
clusters for each scale also varies (cf. Hanges, Dickson, & Sipe, 2004). bGroup span ranges from A to B. cGroup span
ranges from A to C. dGroup span ranges from A to D. eGroup span ranges from A to E. fGroup span ranges from A
to F. gGroup span ranges from A to G. hGroup span ranges from A to H. iGroup span ranges from A to I. jRank order
of GLOBE dimensions within the New Zealand sample.
of within-country rankings. The importance of Humane is consistent with the finding by

Toulson (1990) that New Zealanders in work organizations strongly endorse humanistic work
beliefs. Furthermore, the large-scale redundancies occasioned by the economic reforms
commenced in 1984 and the share market crash of 1987, may have heightened respondents’
sensitivity to the importance of a humane dimension of leadership.
In contrast, New Zealand managers’ ratings on six of the leadership scales were among the
lowest 10 countries. The rating of 4.79 given to Administratively Competent ranks 59th among
all the countries, falling into the lowest band. The scale reflects an organized, methodical
approach to work, underpinned by skills in coordinating and managing complex administra-
tive systems. The mean is just above the midpoint, suggesting that most managers view this
scale positively, but it is valued much less as a contributor to effective leadership than in other
countries. As noted by the focus group, Administrative Competence is something required by
an average manager, and is not a distinguishing characteristic of an outstanding leader.
The New Zealand sample also gave lower ratings to Integrity than most other countries—
an average of 5.49 giving a country ranking of 55th. This scale had the highest standard devi-
ation for the New Zealand leadership scales, suggesting a wide spread of opinion about its
relevance to leadership. The focus group saw integrity as essential for a leader (Table 12.2),
and Parry and Proctor (2000) found very high levels of perceived integrity in their survey of
New Zealand leaders. New Zealand is also consistently ranked among the three or four least
corrupt societies in the world (Transparency International, 2002). Perhaps New Zealand
managers consider honesty and trustworthiness to be the norm in New Zealand, rather than a
special quality useful for distinguishing effective leaders.
Status Consciousness, with a rating of 3.56, also ranked 55th out of the 61 GLOBE coun-
tries. The rating is below the midpoint of the scale, indicating that most managers take a neg-
ative view of leaders who are conscious of class or status boundaries, and who allow these to
influence their actions. The items comprising this scale showed very large differences in
country means, ranging from 1.92 (impedes leadership effectiveness) to 5.77 (contributes to
leadership effectiveness) (den Hartog et al., 1999). New Zealand’s low score is therefore an
important, distinctive attribute of leadership in this country.
The final three scales on which New Zealand ranks low compared with other countries are
Diplomatic (52nd), Face Saver (51st), and Modesty (51st). The Face Saver characteristics
(e.g., being indirect in communication to avoid giving offense) are seen as inhibiting effec-
tive leadership more by New Zealanders than by respondents in other countries. The other
two dimensions are rated as contributing to effective leadership, but are seen as less impor-
tant contributors than in other countries.
Factor Analysis of Leadership Scales. Although the 21 GLOBE leadership factors pro-
vide a fine-grained picture of effective leadership in New Zealand organizations, people typ-
ically use fewer dimensions to make judgments about people. Factor analysis is a statistical
technique that can help identify the underlying dimensions (or latent constructs) related to
assessments of leader behaviors. This section summarizes the results of a principal axis fac-
tor analysis of the New Zealand leadership questionnaire responses.1 On the basis of parallel
1
The GLOBE scales were designed to measure organizational- or societal-level variability (Hanges & Dickson,
2004). The scales were not intended to meaningfully differentiate among individuals within a particular society.
However, even though the scales were not constructed to provide such information, in some cases it is interesting to
assess whether similar factors differentiate individuals within a society. Country-specific factor analysis is intended
as an exploration of the themes captured by GLOBE in a new domain, that is, individual differences within a soci-
ety. It should be noted that, because of the within-society restriction of the GLOBE scales true-score variability
(which was based on between-society differences), the loadings of the GLOBE scale’s items on within-society fac-
tors should be lower than between societies (cf. Hanges & Dickson, 2004). Furthermore, one should not interpret the
within-society factor analyses as replications of the GLOBE factor structure. And the absence of a GLOBE factor
within a society should not be automatically interpreted as the factor being irrelevant to the people in that country.
Rather, a factor may fail to emerge within a society even when that theme is extremely critical because there was no
variability in how the individuals from a single society rated the items (e.g., they all rated the items a 7). Factor analy-
sis requires variability and so a factor could fail the emerge because it is extremely critical or completely irrelevant
to the people within a society.
420 KENNEDY
TABLE 12.5
Exploratory Factor Analysis of New Zealand Leader Attributes
Scale Team Leader Straight Talker Self-Promoter Bureaucrat
Decisive .78
Team Integrator .72
Admin Competent .68
Integrity .62
Collaborative Team Oriented .54
Malevolent –.53 –.41 .45
Visionary .49
Diplomatic .47
Performance Oriented .47
Inspirational .76
Face Saver –.61
Status-Conscious –.42
Conflict Inducer .72
Autocratic –.43 .65
Self-Centered –.43 .59
Modesty –.55
Nonparticipative .42
Procedural .74
Eigenvalue 3.92 2.74 2.71 1.02
Variance explained (%) 18.6 13.0 12.9 4.9
Note. Principal axis factor analysis, extracting four factors with varimax rotation. Only loadings greater than 0.4
are shown. Three scales (Self-Sacrificial, Humane, and Autonomous) failed to reach this level on any factor and do
not appear in the table.
analysis (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; O’Connor, 2000) four factors
were extracted, and the scale loadings are summarized in Table 12.5.
All of the scales comprising the GLOBE Team Oriented and Charismatic/Value Based
CLTs have their largest loadings on the first factor, with the exception of Inspirational. This
factor has been labeled “Team Leader.” It reflects a style of leading that encompasses trans-
formational leadership attributes firmly based in a cooperative, high-performing team con-
text. The Team Integrator, Collaborative Team Oriented, and Diplomatic scale items
emphasize the importance of working together, resolving individual and intragroup conflict,
giving time and energy to help others, being skilled and tactful in interpersonal relations, and
being loyal to the group even in times of trouble.
The factor also has significant loadings from the Decisive and Performance Oriented
scales. These capture elements of effective behaviors—the ability to make decisions firmly
and logically, to be determined and persistent, and to strive for increasingly high levels of
performance. The team has to be an efficient and effective one, a winning team, not an
unstructured or directionless group. The high negative loading of Malevolent indicates the
undesirability of attributes such as irritability, dishonesty, egotistical behaviors, cynicism, and
uncooperativeness.
The second factor (“Straight Talker”) shows that the New Zealand managers’ implicit
model of leadership includes an underlying construct in which inspirational motivation and
concern for followers are coupled with a willingness to communicate honestly, candidly, and
without undue deference to status. The highest loading scale on this factor is the Inspirational
scale. Scale content includes the extent to which leaders display (or generate in their follow-
ers) positivity, encouragement, enthusiasm, high morale, confidence, and energy. The Face-
Saving and Status-Conscious scales (both components of the GLOBE Self-Protective CLT)
have strong loadings in the opposite direction to the Inspirational and Humane scales. An
egalitarian approach coupled with clear and direct communication is an important part of the
leadership perspective captured by this factor.
The third factor (labeled “Self-Promoter”) includes elements of both the Self- Protective and
Participative (negatively loaded) CLT dimensions. It captures a self-centered, directive leader-
ship style. A strong loading from Autocratic captures both leadership style (bossy, domineering,
dictatorial, and intolerant of questioning) and belief in elitism. The other four scales loading
positively on this factor are Conflict Inducer, Nonparticipative, Self-Centered, and
Autonomous. These reflect attributes such as an emphasis on one’s own interests rather than the
groups, an insistence on making decisions personally, a tendency to conceal information from
the group, and a preference for independence. Finally, the high negative loading of Modesty
reflects New Zealanders’ dislike of boasting, and the value placed on a self-effacing manner.
The fourth factor (“Bureaucrat”) differs markedly from the GLOBE second-order factors.
It highlights a unique aspect of the way in which New Zealand managers evaluate their lead-
ers. The factor is dominated by the Procedural scale, which includes items relating to for-
mality, caution, maintaining a habitual routine, and a preference for following established
rules. Reliance on formal rules goes against the New Zealand preference for managing the
team rather than the process, and has been identified as a weakness in many New Zealand
managers (see Parry & Proctor, 2000).
The contribution of the four factors to perceptions of effective leadership can be assessed.
The leadership scales are based on variables rated from 1 (“greatly inhibits a person from being
an outstanding leader”) to 7 (“contributes greatly to a person being an outstanding leader”). By
taking the average score of each of the leadership scales loading on each factor, we can assess
the extent to which a high factor score is positively or negatively associated with leadership.
On this basis, the cluster of leadership scales represented by the Team Leader factor are
the ones most highly valued in New Zealand leaders, with an average rating of 5.65. This fac-
tor also accounts for the largest amount of variance in the model (18.6%). The “Straight
Talker” factor has an average of 5.41, and accounts for 13% of variance. This cluster of attrib-
utes is therefore highly valued, and an important component of the New Zealand leadership
model. The Self-Promoter factor (accounting for 12.9% of variance) captures behaviors that
detract from effective leadership, with an average rating of 3.03; the Autocratic, Self-
centered, and Nonparticipative scales in particular are viewed as inimical to good leadership.
Finally, behaviors associated with the Bureaucrat factor (3.86) detract from perceptions of
effective leadership, but account for only 4.9% of variance.
The New Zealand factor structure replicates the GLOBE Charismatic/Value Based and
Team Oriented CLTs, although these factors emerge as one in the New Zealand sample. The
remaining New Zealand factors differ from the GLOBE factor structure, and thus provide
422 KENNEDY
insights into unique aspects of the New Zealand leadership model. The factor structure
highlights the importance of honest, candid communication with people, transcending status
or class boundaries (Straight Talker). It also underscores the importance of a leader being seen
to actively engage with his or her team, to encourage participation, to place the team and its
goals ahead of personal ambition, and to maintain an appropriate level of humility (Self-
Promoter). Finally, the negative connotations of the Bureaucrat factor are consistent with the
pragmatic, problem-solving attitude discussed in the section on culture.
Many of the people honored by being featured on New Zealand banknotes epitomize these
qualities—in particular, the willingness to forego self-interest and to make personal sacrifices
in the interest of a goal or vision, often coupled with a challenge to existing privilege or con-
trol structures. Kate Sheppard was the most prominent leader of the campaign for universal
suffrage in New Zealand at the end of the 19th century; Sir Apirana Ngata led the revival of
Maori people and culture in the early 20th century; Ernest Rutherford is internationally rec-
ognized as the “father of the atom”; and Sir Edmund Hillary was the first person to climb Mt
Everest, and to drive overland to the South Pole.
Discussion
The findings of the qualitative and quantitative analyses provide a consistent picture of the
leadership behaviors valued most highly by New Zealand managers. High levels of perfor-
mance must be balanced by a somewhat modest, self-deprecating attitude. Involvement of
team members using an egalitarian, participative style is expected, together with flexibility in
the application of rules and processes. The leader must enthuse and inspire followers, but this
is best done through personal commitment, perseverance, and example, rather than by exhor-
tation or flummery.
The cultural emphasis on low In-Group Collectivism, high Institutional Collectivism, low
Power Distance, and low Assertiveness distinguish New Zealand from most other GLOBE
countries. The value placed on collectivism at the work group and societal level contrasts
markedly with the individualist values apparent in the in-group and family context. The man-
agers’ view of work group pride seems linked more to utilitarian considerations than to an
innate need for affiliation. Performance is paramount. In line with the pioneering cultural
strand, people are considered to determine their own fortune; they stand or fall on their abil-
ity to achieve, whether as individuals or as contributors to a wider group enterprise.
New Zealanders don’t look favorably on rules, detailed administrative procedures, or
being controlled by micromanaging bureaucrats. On the other hand, the cultural values evi-
dence a high need to reduce uncertainty, to increase the level of stability and predictability.
This is achieved more by conformity, by a desire to avoid being different, than by subordina-
tion to a set of externally imposed or class-based “rules.” Effective leadership in New Zealand
is therefore likely to require a “clan control” rather than “bureaucratic control” approach to
controlling people and channeling their efforts (Bartol & Martin, 1998).
Though New Zealanders dislike autocratic leaders, they also spurn leaders who pull their
punches, who aren’t prepared to “call a spade a spade.” There is a potential dissonance
between this avoidance of the autocrat, and the desire for a leader who can reduce uncertainty,
provide a sense of security, and instill confidence. Performance is valued highly, and
accolades are given to those who achieve at the highest level (as long as they don’t act as
though their achievements make them better than others). New Zealanders want to follow a
leader who can succeed, who can perform at an exceptional level, and who gives hope that
followers can share in this success. They want to be told what to do by a successful (albeit
self-effacing) leader, not by a bureaucrat with a policy manual.
A strong leader can reduce uncertainty, and make people feel they are on the winning team.
Perhaps this accounts for what Pearson has called New Zealanders’ “lurking respect for the
dictator” (Pearson, 1974), the willingness to allow a leader to be dictatorial if he or she
achieves results, and if those results benefit the dominant group. Dictators usually have a pas-
sion, they are driven to control people to an end, and they are enthusiastic about their goals.
At various times in the past New Zealand has willingly endorsed authoritarian Prime
Ministers (most recently, Sir Robert Muldoon). The media study identified emotionality,
panic, and weakness as negative characteristics—the country’s pioneering background seems
to make a strong autocrat preferable to a sensitive facilitator.
Traditional attributes are still valued, such as strength of character, resolve, determination,
and commitment. Increasing importance is being placed on the ability to inspire and enthuse
staff, on Future Orientation, and on development and communication of a compelling vision.
The high importance placed on having a leader with vision reflects the overall concern at the
low level of Future Orientation in society. Leaders are valued for demonstrating foresight,
planning ahead, and taking actions in consideration of future goals, perhaps in compensation
for the low emphasis given to these behaviors by society as a whole.
There is an important aspect of our cultural identity that is not adequately captured by the
GLOBE questionnaire. The rural archetype encompasses a practical, down-to-earth approach
to problem solving, colored by “Kiwi ingenuity.” The GLOBE items, by focusing on generic
leadership behaviors, do not address technical skills, yet this seems to be an area that may fur-
ther distinguish New Zealand leaders from their international counterparts. Rippin (1995)
found that technical skills were an important contributor to judgments about senior managers’
perceived levels of overall effectiveness. Her finding contrasts with similar overseas studies,
and she speculates that the value placed on technical skills may be a function of the New
Zealand “colonial spirit” (p.133), requiring managers to demonstrate greater versatility than
is the case in other countries.
This summary has implications for overseas managers who come to New Zealand to
assume leadership roles. The large individual differences that exist within cultures make it
hard to be definitive about the likely experiences of expatriate or immigrant managers in New
Zealand. Furthermore, such managers will find an increasingly multicultural workforce—a
typical New Zealand manufacturer in the Auckland region might comprise 20% New Zealand
European, 15% Maori, 15% Samoan, 10% Cook Islanders, 10% Tongans, 10% Chinese, 10%
Malaysian, 5% Korean, and 5% Indian (Thomas, Ravlin, & Barry, 2000).
However, managers from cultures that differ markedly from the values espoused by New
Zealand managers are likely to experience greater dissonance than those from similar cul-
tures. Comparison of GLOBE values for other countries is a useful starting point, and the
cluster analysis by Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman (2002) gives an overview of broad cultural
similarities and differences. Even within the same cluster, however, important differences
exist. Australia, the United States, and South Africa (White sample) all belong (with New
Zealand) to the Anglo cluster, but managers from all of these countries scored significantly
higher on Assertiveness than did New Zealand managers.
Australians, Americans, and South Africans who use levels of assertive behavior consis-
tent with norms in their home countries are likely to be viewed negatively in New Zealand.
Their actions may be considered “pushy,” arrogant, or domineering, resulting in lowered
cooperation and respect from locals.
424 KENNEDY
Managers from cultures that are high on Power Distance or status consciousness must be
prepared for greater levels of informality in New Zealand. The apparent lack of deference
shown by New Zealanders is driven by egalitarian values, and should not be interpreted as
lack of respect. Similarly, the new leader has to be careful in choosing how to establish cred-
ibility. Personal statements about his or her experience and expertise may be seen as “skit-
ing,” as self-promotion inconsistent with the value placed on humility and modesty.
Understated, objective descriptions of experience or achievements, giving acknowledgment
to the contributions of others, are less likely to engender skepticism.
Gaining the acceptance of followers is critical for leaders in New Zealand, as the low level
of Power Distance makes it difficult for leaders to maintain their position based only on legit-
imate authority. Acceptance requires openness, integrity, straightforward communication, and
willingness to subordinate personal ego for the good of the group.
New Zealanders’ high level of Institutional Collectivism is consistent with their strong
sense of national pride (Smith & Jarkko, 2001). It is important that expatriate managers rec-
ognize this, and minimize actions that belittle or undermine this sense of unique identity.
Unthinking application of international HR policies, value statements, diversity programs,
and similar initiatives can have unintended effects (cynicism, lowered trust, resentment)
unless the local context and values are taken into account (Jones et al., 2000).
Finally, the egalitarianism that pervades New Zealand culture creates challenges for expa-
triates seeking to recognize and reward individual performance. The sense of “fair play” dic-
tates that individuals are acknowledged and rewarded for their contribution, whereas the
emphasis on teamwork and egalitarianism creates strong pressure for team-based rewards.
The composition of work teams, levels of interdependence, and opportunity for individual
contribution need to be carefully balanced against these values of egalitarianism and team
loyalty.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The use of GLOBE quantitative and qualitative tools to explore cultural values and preferred
leadership behaviors provides a strong foundation for international comparisons. However,
by collecting quantitative data from only three industries, care must be taken when general-
izing results within New Zealand. The sample size (184) prevents more fine-grained analy-
sis. Future research into the differences in values and implicit leadership models of men and
women, of different ethnic groups in New Zealand, as a function of age, or of geographic
location will contribute to our understanding of effective leadership in organizations.
Data collection took place following one of the most significant periods of economic and
social restructuring in New Zealand’s history. As noted in several places during this chapter,
it is possible that some responses may have been influenced by reaction to these events.
Future studies using the GLOBE scales will be needed in order to clarify the stability of the
pattern identified.
5. CONCLUSION
This chapter began with a quotation from John Mulgan, a New Zealand writer and diplomat
who studied and worked in England during the 1930s. He described the qualities that char-
acterized New Zealand soldiers he met during the desert campaign of World War II. We have
seen how some of these attributes closely fit the culturally endorsed model of outstanding
leadership in New Zealand. This implicit model combines inspirational enthusiasm

(“sunshine”), low assertiveness, pragmatism, and perseverance. Low Power Distance and the
strength of egalitarian beliefs mandate a style of leadership that is participative, grounded in
the team, and provides the opportunity for shared success.
To the extent that leadership is “the process of being perceived by others as a leader” (Lord
& Maher, 1991, p. 11) then New Zealand leaders must conform to the cultural expectations
of their followers. New Zealand’s cultural identity, however, has been determined in part by
the actions of leaders (in military, cultural, sporting, political, and commercial spheres).
Culture can therefore be viewed both as a constraint on what is acceptable and as a support-
ing structure amenable to further development as New Zealanders build and extend their con-
cept of effective leadership. Another New Zealand writer, Katherine Mansfield (1960,
p. 127), described New Zealand as “a little land with no history (Making its own history,
slowly and clumsily. Piecing together this and that, finding the pattern, solving the problem,
Like a child with a box of bricks).”
New Zealand leaders have found patterns and solved problems in ways that both reflect
and help to define “Kiwi culture.” Though many of the building blocks for New Zealand’s
leadership style can be found in other countries, the overall pattern is unique. The problems
to be solved will continue to change, and leaders will need to continue finding new bricks to
extend the pattern. The GLOBE study provides a snapshot of existing cultural themes and
leadership styles, and a basis from which to explore future evolution of Kiwi leadership as
New Zealand continues to develop and refine its sense of identity and place in the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter was written while I was in the Commerce Division of Lincoln University, New
Zealand. Peter Cosgriff, Mark Fearing, and Dan Sauers contributed to the early planning and
data-gathering stages of GLOBE in New Zealand and their contribution is gratefully
acknowledged. I also thank Kerr Inkson, Jagdeep Chhokar, Ken Parry, Peter Cammock, and
Ramzi Addison for their constructive and thoughtful comments on a draft.
REFERENCES
Ah Chong, L. M., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha
and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 275–293.
Ansley, B. (2000, March 25). Human values. Listener, 16–19.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public
Administrative Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.
Belich, J. (2001). Paradise reforged : A history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000.
Auckland, New Zealand: Allen Lane Penguin Press.
Booth, P. (1993). Edmund Hillary: The life of a legend. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Bridges, J., & Downs, D. (2000). No. 8 wire: The best of Kiwi ingenuity. Auckland, New Zealand:
Hodder Moa Beckett.
Briggs, A. (1965). The welfare state in historical perspective. In M. Zald (Ed.), Social welfare institu-
tions (pp. 25–45). New York: Wiley.
426 KENNEDY
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. R. (1995). Developing a lay model of managerial effectiveness:
A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 443–476.
Campbell-Hunt, C., & Corbett, L. (1996). A season of excellence? An overview of New Zealand enter-
prise in the Nineties (Research Monograph No. 65). Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic
Research.
Campbell-Hunt, C., Harper, D., & Hamilton, R. (1993). Islands of excellence? A study of management
in New Zealand (Research Monograph No. 59). Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic
Research.
Carter, I., & Perry, N. (1987). Rembrandt in gumboots: Rural imagery in New Zealand television adver-
tisements. In J. Phillips (Ed.), Te Whenua Te Iwi—The land and the people. Wellington, New
Zealand: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press.
Child, Youth and Family. (1999). Strengthening families: Report on cross-sectoral outcome measures
and targets. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Crocombe, G., Enright, M., & Porter, M. (1991). Upgrading New Zealand’s competitive advantage.
Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Dalziel, P. (2002). New Zealand’s economic reforms: An assessment. Review of Political Economy,
14(1), 31–46.
Davin, D. (1984, November). Cassino casualty. Islands, 1 New Series.
Deeks, J., Parker, J., & Ryan, R. (1994). Labour and employment relations in New Zealand (2nd ed.).
Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul.
den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Kennedy, J. C.,
et al. (1999). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256.
Department of Statistics. (1990). New Zealand Official Yearbook (94th ed.). Wellington, New Zealand:
Author.
Easton, B. (2000, March 25). Value added. Listener, pp. 20–21.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Fairburn, M. (1989). The ideal society and its enemies: The foundations of modern New Zealand soci-
ety 1850–1900. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.
Fearing, M., Heyward, J., Kennedy, J. C., & O’Sullivan, D. (1995). The GLOBE study of management
and leadership in New Zealand. Unpublished manuscript, Commerce Division, Lincoln University,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Feather, N. T. (1993). The rise and fall of political leaders: Attributions, deservingness, personality and
affect. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 61–68.
Feather, N. T. (1994a). Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and research
concerning tall poppies. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1–73).
New York: Academic Press.
Feather, N. T. (1994b). Values and national identification: Australian evidence. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 46, 35–40.
Frater, P., Stuart, G., Rose, D., & Andrews, G. (1995). The New Zealand innovation environment.
Wellington, New Zealand: Business and Economic Research Ltd.
Frederick, H. H., & Carswell, P. J. (2001). Global entrepreneurship monitor New Zealand 2001.
Auckland: New Zealand Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (UNITEC).
Gendall, P., Robbie, P., Patchett, S., & Bright, N. (2000). Social equality in New Zealand. Palmerston North,
New Zealand: Department of Marketing, Massey University, International Social Survey Programme.
Geraets, J. (1984). An interior landscape: Charles Brasch’s “Indirections” and “The Universal Dance.”
Islands, 1 New Series(1), 71–84.
Gidlow, R., Perkins, H., Cushman, G., & Simpson, C. (1994). Leisure and recreation. In P. Spoonley,
D. Pearson, & I. Shirley (Eds.), New Zealand society: A sociological introduction (2nd ed., pp.
253–267). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Godfrey, K., & Kennedy, J. C. (1998). Media portrayal of leadership in New Zealand: A GLOBE study.
Unpublished Manuscript, Commerce Division, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Gold, H., & Webster, A. (1990). New Zealand values today. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Alpha.
Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal
of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.
Hamilton, R. T., Dakin, S. R., & Loney, R. P. (1992). Economic deregulation and general managers:
New Zealand’s experience. Personnel Review, 21(7), 14–23.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and
leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, V. Gupta, & GLOBE
Associates (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp.
122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Sipe, M. T. (2004). Rationale for GLOBE statistical analyses: Societal
rankings and test of hypotheses. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta
(Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 219–234).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansen, D. (1968). Social institutions. In A. McLeod (Ed.), The pattern of New Zealand culture
(pp. 49-67). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harris, P. (1996). The changes banks face. Wellington, New Zealand: The Finance Sector Union
(FinSec).
Hines, G. (1973). The New Zealand manager. Wellington, New Zealand: Hicks, Smith & Sons Ltd.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and orga-
nizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holm, M. (1994, November 5). Secrets for success. Listener, pp. 16–24.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al.
(1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M.
J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT:
JAI.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hughes, T. (2001). Statement by the New Zealand Deputy Permanent Representative, Friday 10
November 2000. Paper presented at the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth
Committee), United Nations, New York.
Hyde, T. (1991, September). How they sold Telecom, why they sold Telecom. Metro, pp. 54–69.
IMD International. (2000). The world competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland: International
Institute for Management Development.
Inkson, J. H. K., & Henshall, B. (1990). Transformational leadership and management development. In
P. Boxall (Ed.), Function in search of a future: Perspectives on contemporary human resource man-
agement in New Zealand (pp. 157–171). Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul.
Inkson, J. H. K., Henshall, B., Marsh, N., & Ellis, G. (1986). Theory K: The key to excellence in New
Zealand management. Auckland, New Zealand: David Bateman Ltd.
Irving, D., & Inkson, J. H. K. (1998). It must be Wattie’s: From Kiwi icon to global player. Auckland,
New Zealand: David Bateman.
Jones, D., Pringle, J., & Shepherd, D. (2000). “Managing diversity” meets Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Personnel Review, 29(3), 364–380.
Knuckey, S., Leung-Wai, J., & Meskill, M. (1999). Gearing up: A study of best manufacturing practice
in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Commerce.
Lattimore, R. G. (1994). Assessing the international competitiveness of the New Zealand food sector. In
M. Bredahl, P. Abbott, & M. Reed (Eds.), Competitiveness in international food markets. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Lattimore, R. G. (1997). Deregulation: The New Zealand food industry. In T. Wallace & W. Schroder
(Eds.), Government and the food industry: Economic and political effects of conflict and coopera-
tion. Boston: Kluwer.
428 KENNEDY
Lealand, G. (1988). A foreign egg in our nest? American popular culture in New Zealand. Wellington,
New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
Ledingham, P. (1995). The review of bank supervision arrangements in New Zealand: The main ele-
ments of the debate. Reserve Bank Bulletin (RBNZ), 58(3), 163–171.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions
and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Love, P. (1996, September 14). Changing times bring upheaval for financiers. The Evening Post, p. 15.
Mansfield, K. (1960). To Stanislaw Wyspianski. In A. Curnow (Ed.), The Penguin book of New Zealand
Verse (pp. 127–128). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
McKinlay, P. (2000, June). Social responsibility—business challenge. Paper presented at the
Redesigning Resources Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
McLauchlan, G., & Morgan, J. (1976). The passionless people. Auckland: Cassell New Zealand.
Ministry of Defense. (2001). Report of the Ministry of Defense for the year ended 30 June 2001.
Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Ministry of Youth Affairs. (1998). Options for enhancing the effectiveness of government policy on
young people’s sexual and reproductive health. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Youth Affairs
Te Tari Taiohi.
Ministry of Youth Affairs. (2002). Building resilience: Briefing to the incoming minister. Wellington,
New Zealand: Ministry of Youth Affairs Te Tari Taiohi.
Mulgan, J. (1984). Report on experience. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Naipaul, V. (1980). The return of Eva Peron with the killings in Trinidad. London: Andre Deutsch.
New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs. (1996). The dictionary of New Zealand biography
1901–1920 (Vol. 3). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.
New Zealand Government. (2001). Government defense statement: A modern, sustainable defense force
matched to New Zealand’s needs. Wellington: Author.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using par-
allel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
32(3), 396–402.
Office of Treaty Settlements. (2001). Quarterly report to June 2001. Wellington, New Zealand: Office
of Treaty Settlements Te Tari Whakatau Take e pa ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Ogilvie, G. (1973). The riddle of Richard Pearse. Wellington, New Zealand: AH & AW Reed.
One-third of bank branches closed. (1999, May 5). The Press, p. 29.
O’Reilly, T., & Wood, D. (1991). Biculturalism and the public sector. In J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot,
& P. Walsh (Eds.), Reshaping the state: New Zealand’s bureaucratic revolution (pp. 329–342).
Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor, S. B. (2000). The New Zealand Leadership Survey, 1999. Wellington,
New Zealand: Centre for the Study of Leadership, Victoria University.
Pearson, B. (1974). Fretful sleepers and other essays. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Peel, S., & Inkson, J. H. K. (2000). Economic deregulation and psychological contracts: The
New Zealand experience. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employ-
ment: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 195–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pfeifer, D. (2005). Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand: Maori and Pakeha perceptions of outstand-
ing leadership. Unpublished Master of Management thesis, Massey University, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Pfeifer, D., & Love, M. (2004). Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand: A cross-cultural study. PRISM,
2. Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/number_2_1.html
Phillips, J. (1989). War and national identity. In D. Novitz & B. Willmott (Eds.), Culture and identity in
New Zealand (pp. 91–109). Wellington, New Zealand: GP Books.
Rippin, S. (1995). The competencies used to assess the effectiveness of New Zealand managers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington: New Zealand.
Rotherham, F. (1998, September 2). Is the Kiwi corporate culture wrecking our family life? The
Independent.
Savage, J. (1999). Savings in New Zealand (No. 99/1). Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the
Retirement Commissioner.
Sinclair, K. (1969). A History of New Zealand (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Singer, M. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company
managers. Psychological Reports, 56, 816–818.
Smith, T. W., & Jarkko, L. (2001). National pride in cross-national perspective. Chicago: National
Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
Spector, P., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O’Driscoll, M. P., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., et al. (2001). Do
national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level
international study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 815–832.
Statistics New Zealand. (1995). Facts NZ (2nd ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Statistics New Zealand. (1997). New Zealand official year book 1997. Wellington, New Zealand: GP
Print.
Statistics New Zealand. (1999). New Zealand official yearbook on the Web 1999. Retrieved April 26,
2000, from http://www.stats.govt.nz
Statistics New Zealand. (2001). Retrieved August 29, 2005, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/quick-
facts/people/default.htm
Statistics New Zealand. (2002). New Zealand official year book 2002. Wellington, New Zealand: GP
Print.
Stephens, R. J., Frater, P. R., & Waldegrave, C. (2000). Below the line: An analysis of income poverty
in New Zealand, 1984–1998. Wellington, New Zealand: Graduate School of Business and
Government Management, Victoria University of Wellington.
Stewart, V. (1981). Business applications of repertory grid. London: McGraw-Hill.
Tapsell, S. (1997, October). Is Maori management different? Management, 44, 46–50.
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand. (1993). The Telecom turnaround: The deregulation of the
telecommunications industry. Wellington: Author.
Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C., & Barry, D. (2000). Creating effective multicultural teams. Auckland
University Business Review, 2(1), 11–24.
Toulson, P. K. (1990). Perceptions, practices, and productivity: An assessment of personnel manage-
ment in New Zealand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
Transparency International. (2002). Corruptions Perceptions Index 2002. Retrieved January 27, 2003,
from http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html
Ware, A., & Dewes, K. (2000, September). Nuclear weapons-free zones: From symbolic gesture to
statutory ban: The Aotearoa-New Zealand experience. Paper presented at the Nuclear Weapons-Free
Zones: Crucial Steps Towards a Nuclear-Free World, Uppsala, Sweden.
Watkins, T. (2003, January 9). Big pay rises replace bonus system. The Dominion Post.
Watson, L. (1994). The “tall poppy” myth. Retrieved January 29, 2003, from soc.culture.new-zealand
archives in http://groups.google.co.nz
Wevers & Company. (1994). The Index of Human Resource Management Performance. Wellington,
New Zealand: Author.
Wevers International Ltd/Centre for Corporate Strategy. (1996). New Zealand Index of Human Resource
Management & Organisational Effectiveness. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Management.
Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 7, 264–269.
Yergin, D., & Stanislaw, J. (1998). The commanding heights: The battle between government and the
marketplace that is remaking the modern world. New York: Simon & Schuster.
430 KENNEDY
Appendix A
Background Information on the

Food-Processing, Finance, and
Telecommunications Industries
In order to improve comparability among the various countries of the GLOBE study, the
research was carried out in three selected industries—food processing, financial services, and
telecommunications. This section provides brief background material on each sector in New
Zealand.
FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
New Zealand, as a temperate country with low population density, has a long history as an
agricultural producer and exporter. Its ability to attain high levels of self-sufficiency in food
products led to an early emphasis on exporting (Lattimore, 1994). In the late 19th century,
export activities were oriented largely toward supplying the British market, and many food-
processing companies (especially in the meat sector) were established with British capital
(Lattimore, 1997). Today, New Zealand exports of sheep meat account for 54% of the world
export trade, and the country is one of the top five dairy exporters in the world (Statistics New
Zealand, 1999). New Zealand export industries are dominated by companies in the food and
beverage sector (Crocombe, Enright, & Porter, 1991) and, in 1996, food products made up
38.5% of the total value of New Zealand’s exports (Statistics New Zealand, 1997).
Acting in the role of “Britain’s Farm,” New Zealand supplied bulk commodities (such as
sheep meat and butter), with little in the way of added-value processing. The guaranteed mar-
ket (and good returns) meant there was little pressure to develop greater sophistication in food
processing, or to enter more competitive markets. At the same time, domestically oriented
food-processing industries (such as wheat, bakery, and cereal products) were protected from
international competition by a system of state import monopolies, consumer restrictions, and
phytosanitary restrictions (Lattimore, 1997).
Britain’s entry into the European Common Market during the 1970s meant the loss of New
Zealand’s largest market for agricultural products and resulted in increased exports to new
trading partners, particularly in Asia. Firms have had to develop greater awareness of diverse
customer requirements, and make technological innovations to serve them effectively, while
adjusting to significantly higher levels of international competition.
Agriculture was one of the first sectors to lose government protection and support
during the economic deregulation program that began in 1984. New Zealand is now unique
among developed countries in that farmers receive no subsidies from government while hav-
ing to compete with subsidized production from other producing countries (Statistics
New Zealand, 1999).
FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY
The banking and financial services sector in New Zealand is now highly competitive but it
hasn’t always been that way. Until the mid-1980s, only four commercial banks operated in
the country, and these were subject to governmental controls over their interest rates, invest-
ments, and lending portfolios. Other organizations (such as savings banks, building societies,
and finance companies) offered a more limited range of banking services, and were also sub-
ject to tight government control. Strong restrictions on foreign-exchange transactions effec-
tively protected New Zealand banks from overseas competition, and the lack of any effective
competition in the sector meant that little innovation occurred. Ledingham (1995, p. 163) has
characterized the sector at this time as being “boringly stable.”
The large commercial banks developed multileveled hierarchies and mechanistic cultures
appropriate for the stable and predictable environment. They were cautious and conservative,
with cultures ill-suited to rapid or radical change (Harris, 1996). During the 1970s and 1980s,
competition developed outside the banking sector, with finance companies and other organi-
zations beginning to capture an increasing share of the deposits and lending markets. These
institutions lobbied for access to other activities (e.g., foreign-exchange dealing) that gov-
ernment regulations excluded them from. The distinction between banks and nonbanks began
to diminish and, in 1984–1985, the government carried out major reforms of the financial sec-
tor. Foreign-exchange and interest rate controls were removed, and, in 1986, new banks were
allowed to set up in New Zealand. A total of 21 new banks were approved. The government
sold the banks that it controlled (1989–1992) and withdrew its explicit guarantee of deposits
at trustee savings banks (1988).
During this time banks also had to cope with major changes in technology. The extensive
introduction of electronic payments systems, development of new products, and exposure to
international innovations placed pressure on managers whose past experience was in a more
stable and predictable world.
During the 1990s, the financial sector continued to evolve as a result of pressures to
increase cost efficiencies and improve customer service. Large mergers resulted in closure of
branches, and staff redundancies, although accelerating uptake of telephone banking, ATMs
(automatic teller machines), and other technology, contributed to reduced staffing levels.
More than one third of New Zealand’s bank branches were closed between 1993 and 1998,
with staffing being reduced by 11%. The number of ATMs increased by over 30% in the same
period (Harris, 1996; Love, 1996; “One-third of bank branches closed,” 1999).
The New Zealand finance sector is now dominated by overseas-owned companies. Three
of the five major banks are owned by Australian parent companies, one operates as a branch
of an Australian bank, and the other has a British parent.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
Prior to April 1, 1987, all telecommunications services, both domestic and international, were
provided by the state-controlled New Zealand Post Office. The Post Office’s statutory
monopoly also extended to the provision of telecommunications equipment, such as domes-
tic telephones and commercial switchboards. In the mid-1980s, New Zealand experienced
rapid growth in the demand for telecommunication services, and the national network was
severely overloaded. At times it was impossible to get a call through from New Zealand’s
largest city, Auckland, to the capital, Wellington. Long delays in the provision of telephone
432 KENNEDY
services were common, with customers having to wait 6 to 8 weeks for a telephone to be
installed (Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, 1993).
In 1986, the Labour government, as part of its economic restructuring programme, split the
Post Office into three separate state-owned enterprises. Telecom Corporation assumed
responsibility for the telecommunications role, and began operating on April 1, 1987.
Telecom’s first priority was to restructure the company in preparation for deregulation and
eventual competition. The centralized bureaucracy was replaced with a decentralized organi-
zation structure and Telecom invested in programs aimed at improving service quality, net-
work reliability, personnel productivity, and profitability. Cost-cutting programs were put into
place, a substantial number of jobs were made redundant, and outdated systems were replaced
with computerized alternatives (Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, 1993).
In 1990, Telecom Corporation was privatized through sale to a consortium headed by two
American telecommunications companies, Ameritech and Bell Atlantic, for over U.S.$2.5
billion. This was the sixth-biggest deal in the world in 1990 and, until recently, the biggest
deal in New Zealand history (Hyde, 1991).
Deregulation allowed new competitors into the market, with companies such as Clear
Communications, BellSouth, Telstra, and Vodafone seeking to compete in different parts of
the domestic, international, and mobile markets. International companies (including
Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson) began selling telecommunications equipment, and New
Zealand companies (such as Ben Rumble) entered the retail equipment sales and servicing
sector.
In summary, all three of the industries surveyed in this part of the GLOBE project have
experienced significant pressures to increase effectiveness and efficiency, as they operate in
an environment characterized by increasing competition, greater demands for technology
investment, and reduced governmental support and protection.
View publication stats

Leadership and Culture in New Zealand: January 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership and Culture in New Zealand: January 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership and Culture in New Zealand: January 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Leadership and culture in New Zealand

Article · January 2012

GLOBE Study View project

Careers in cities View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Leadership and culture in New Zealand

1. NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY AND CULTURE

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 399

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 401

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 403

personnel having been deployed with UN peacekeeping or mine-clearing missions to East

2. THE GLOBE STUDY—SOCIETAL CULTURE

• Gender: 79% of the respondents were male, and 21% female.

“As Is” Ratings “Should Be” Ratings

Cultural Dimension Scoreb Bandc (Rank) Scoreb Band (Rank)c Difference

Institutional Collectivism 4.81 Ae (5) 4.20 Ce (51) –0.61

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 405

Institutional Collectivism. An example of New Zealanders’ concern for collective inter-

Uncertainty Avoidance. Hofstede ranks New Zealand as 39 out of 53 countries on his

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 407

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 409

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 411

3. LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN NEW ZEALAND

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 413

4. THE GLOBE STUDY—LEADERSHIP

Focus Groups and Interviews

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 415

Characteristics Reported by Focus Group Participants

Average Manager Above-Average Manager Outstanding Leader

• Policies and procedures • Uses lateral thinking • Articulate and persuasive

teamwork, a willingness to be a “team player” themselves, and to actively contribute their

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 417

The importance of personality traits in describing leaders is consistent with some of

The Leadership Scales

Between-Country Comparison. The leadership qualities valued by New Zealanders will

Dimensions- Subdimensions Country GLOBE Within –

Score Band (Rank)a Ranking j

Charismatic/Value Based 5.87 Ci (34) –

of within-country rankings. The importance of Humane is consistent with the finding by

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 419

Scale Team Leader Straight Talker Self-Promoter Bureaucrat

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 421

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 423

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 425

leadership in New Zealand. This implicit model combines inspirational enthusiasm

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 427

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 429

Background Information on the

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

12 LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE IN NEW ZEALAND 431

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY

View publication stats

You might also like