Figure 6.1 The partial nested relationship between various fit aspects of the environment.
Both organizational culture and a leader’s behaviors have been identified as critical determinants of an organization’s effectiveness (Berson et al., 2008; Denison, 1984; Schein, 2010). Yet the extent to which the fit between a leader’s behavior and an organization’s culture impacts organizational variables and leader effectiveness has not been empirically examined. This is an important issue for both academics and practitioners in the study of workplace behavior because of its many implications for selection, training, and organizational development.
The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the importance of examining psychological fit in terms of an organization’s culture and leadership. To accomplish this, we must discuss the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between leaders and an organization’s culture. In addition, leader–culture fit represents a special case of fit and faces additional challenges and hurdles that must be overcome. While we will review the scant empirical evidence on this topic, our discussion on leader–culture fit will be largely based in the traditional fit literature, focusing on situational aspects that might cause either complementary or supplementary fit to be beneficial. Finally, we will discuss how leader–culture fit can be leveraged for the future and propose a research agenda to advance research in this area.
Leaders have long been viewed as a primary influence on the creation of organizational culture (e.g. Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Schein, 1983). According to Schein (1985), the “only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture” (p. 2). As Schein discusses, founders have a profound impact on the culture-formation process through the imposition of their own beliefs and assumptions into the group. The adoption of the beliefs, values, and assumptions that form an organization’s culture is further reinforced by leaders through several primary behaviors: what they pay attention to and measure; their reaction to critical incidents, resource allocation, role-modeling, and teaching; rewards and status allocation; and recruitment, selection, and promotion. Moreover, Schein (1985, 2010) contends that key leaders are responsible for modifying culture to keep up with changing demands. This belief is also reflected in Uhl-Bien et al.’s (2007) work on complexity-leadership theory.
Complexity-leadership theory (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009; Ulh-Bien et al., 2007) frames leadership as a complex interactivity between the leader and the environment. Within the complexity-leadership paradigm, adaptive outcomes such as learning, innovation, and adaptability emerge as the leader structures and enables conditions in which the organization can engage in creative problem-solving. In other words, they create and promote a culture of change and development. Although focused on a different area, work on leadership and safety has also pinpointed the leader’s role in developing and maintaining a safety culture (Arboleda et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2010).
Evidence for the impact of leadership on culture can also be found in one of the most-researched phenomena of the past two decades: transformational leadership. Focusing on transformational and transactional leadership, there is a recent chapter dedicated to determining the precise nature of the link between leadership and culture (Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011). This chapter presents a multilevel framework, discussing how transformational and transactional leadership affect organizational culture at different levels (i.e. organizational and subculture). More specifically, it suggests that culture provides the normative bounds for transactional leaders to be effective and that transformational leaders influence culture through strategic decisions and vision, by celebrating success, and by identifying and rewarding employees. Though Hartnell & Walumbwa provide a comprehensive picture of these processes, the idea that transformational and transactional leadership provide a useful lens through which to understand the dynamics between relationships is not a new proposition. Indeed, Bass & Avolio (1993) presented a framework for measuring organizational culture developed specifically out of the factors associated with transformational and transactional leadership.
In addition to this theoretical work, there has been some empirical work in this area. For example, in a recent study transformational leadership predicted cultural orientations of support, innovation, goals and rules, and organizational identification above and beyond transactional leadership (Georgada & Xenikou, 2007). In another study, of 1918 members of the Australian Institute of Management, transformational culture was best predicted by transformational leadership styles (Sarros et al., 2002). Thus, a relationship between these constructs has been supported empirically. It has also been suggested that to better handle times of crisis, there is a need for transformational leaders who can develop an adaptive organizational culture (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Beyond this work, research has also more specifically focused on leaders’ impact on culture during times of organizational change.
Trice & Beyer (1991) suggest that the mechanisms through which leadership operates to create a new culture or change an existing one are not the same as those used to produce cultural maintenance. More specifically, these authors outline how nine elements of leadership (e.g. personal qualities, behaviors, administrative actions) compare depending on whether leadership produces cultural innovation or cultural maintenance, and discuss how the personal qualities and vision of cultural-innovation leaders are closely aligned with those of charismatic leaders. This idea is in line with Hartnell & Walumbwa (2011), who theorize that transformational leaders shape group norms and challenge assumptions (though they can also maintain culture), while transactional leaders at the subunit level influence organizational effectiveness largely by reinforcing existing cultures.
Other work has focused on the role of leaders in managing culture change. For example, Kotter (1995) suggests that for organizational change to be successful it must be rooted in a culture that is personified by the top levels of leadership. Schein (2010) also discusses the concept of a “learning culture” or a culture that is by nature adaptive and flexible, and the implications for leadership of creating such a culture. Still other studies discuss the importance of leaders in managing successful culture change during mergers and acquisitions (e.g. Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006).
Perhaps guided by Schein’s pivotal work, a majority of the work in the domains of culture and leadership has focused on leaders’ roles in shaping culture, rather than the other way around. However, many of these theories also acknowledge reciprocal influences (e.g. Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011; Trice & Beyer, 1991), leading researchers to conclude that it is likely that “culture affects leadership as much as leadership affects culture” (Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 113). In general, a situational perspective would suggest that culture determines leader behavior: just as leadership shapes culture, culture shapes leadership. However, the work on the latter side of this relationship is largely theoretical and qualitative in nature.
The idea that culture shapes leadership stems from the notion that effective leaders pay attention to the existing culture and that this culture impacts how they react and behave. At a basic level, culture can impact how decisions are made (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Thus, leaders not only influence culture, but are in some ways constrained by it (Dickson et al., 2006; Schein, 2010). Despite these theoretical arguments, the empirical support for the idea that culture shapes leadership is lacking. However, research evidence suggests that culture and leadership facilitate one another in achieving organizational effectiveness.
Beyond their role in creating cultures, a leader’s primary role is to develop and maintain an effective culture (Chatman & Cha, 2003). Through a series of case studies, Chatman & Cha (2003) demonstrate that by recognizing culture as a business tool and managing it through selection, socialization, and rewards, leaders can significantly impact the success of their organizations. Supporting this, Berson et al. (2008) and Ogbonna & Harris (2000) both found that culture mediated the relationship between leader characteristics and firm performance. At the same time, organizational culture fosters specific management practices that directly affect ethical behaviors (Toor & Ofori, 2009) and manufacturing performance (Naor et al., 2008)
In sum, leadership and organizational culture are related, and further, the dynamics between these constructs impact organizational effectiveness. However, the theoretical work in this area largely outweighs the empirical, and we believe there is utility in adopting a “fit” perspective for further research in this area.
Like other conceptualizations of fit, leader–culture fit can be seen as the match between a leader and the culture in which they work. Specifically, it is the fit between a leader’s behavior and the organizational culture in which they are operating. In our view, leader–culture fit is similar to popular conceptions of both person–organization and person–group fit. That is, it deals primarily with the beliefs and attitudes that make up the organizational culture and whether the leader’s behavior is consistent with the expectations that arise from that culture. Similarly, there are parallels between leader–culture fit and person–supervisor fit in that both focus on the relationship between supervisors and the people around them. However, while leader–culture fit is similar to other conceptualizations of fit, there are some important differences that need to be considered.
Research on fit typically focuses on the compatibility between individuals and various aspects of an environment, organization, or job (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). This research has identified fit as an important predictor of stress (Hecht & Allen, 2005), attitudes (Resick et al., 2007), and behaviors (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). For example, Hecht & Allen (2005) found that fit between an individual’s preference for multitasking and work demands significantly predicted job satisfaction, self-efficacy beliefs, and general psychological strain. For the most recent estimates of these effect sizes, we recommend readers see the meta-analyses by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) and Hoffman & Woehr (2006).
Fit is a concept that can focus on multiple aspects of a person’s environment. In their meta-analysis, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) identified five types of fit research that captured the majority of published studies: person–vocation fit, person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, and person–supervisor fit. Attempting to integrate all of these perceptions of fit, Jansen & Kristof-Brown (2006) proposed a multidimensional theory of person–environment (PE) fit. As represented in their model, fits in these different areas were not simply nested with one another, but overlapped. For example, person–job fit overlaps with both person–organization and person–supervisor fit, but each of these also focuses on unique aspects of the workplace. Supporting this view of the nesting of fit perceptions, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) reported correlations between different fit concepts, ranging from .30 for person–group and person–supervisor fit to .58 for person–organization and person–job fit. These relationships provide support for the theory of the multidimensional approach to fit. Building upon Jansen & Kristof-Brown’s (2006) model, we present a modified view of the relationships between these aspects of fit in figure 6.1. Note that leader–culture fit exists at two levels, representing both an organizational culture and a work-group culture.
Figure 6.1 The partial nested relationship between various fit aspects of the environment.
Acknowledging the multilevel nature of fit, it is beneficial to discuss the aspects of fit that are most similar to leader–culture fit. Focusing on a broader perspective than person–job fit, person–organization fit focuses on the match between the individual and the entire organization. Research on this has primarily focused on the relationship between individuals and the values and beliefs held by the organization. For example, Resick et al. (2007) measured person–organization fit by directly asking participants the extent to which they felt that their values matched those of the organization. As reviewed by both Hoffman & Woehr (2006) and Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), person–organization fit shows moderately strong relationships with a variety of behavioral outcomes (absenteeism, turnover, task performance, contextual performance) and workplace attitudes (organizational attraction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to quit, workplace strains). Focusing even more narrowly, it is also possible to examine fit between the individual and their work group. Unfortunately, only a handful of studies have examined fit at this level.
At a more interpersonal level, researchers have focused on person–supervisor or leader–follower fit. This level of fit focuses on the nature of the relationship between organizational leaders and the subordinates they supervise. Like person–organization and person–group fit, this type of fit often focuses on the similarity between a leader’s and their followers’ values (e.g. Colbert, 2004; Krishnan, 2002). In addition to the focus on values, research in this area has also examined goal congruence and personality similarities. Leader–culture fit also draws parallels with the leader–follower-fit literature, but focuses on the shared values of members of the organization and the actions of the targeted leader.
Like person–job or person–group fit, leader–culture fit can be viewed in terms of both the demands–ability- and needs–supply-fit paradigms. In terms of the demands–ability model, leader–culture fit can be seen as assessing whether a leader’s management and behavioral pattern is consistent with the demands of the organization’s culture, as reflected by the values held by the individuals making up the organization. An example of fit in this case would be where a leader is able to motivate subordinates in a largely autonomous work unit. From the needs–supply-fit paradigm, we examine whether the organization supplies the psychological needs that the leader requires or the leader supplies the needs of the organization. For example, can a manager fill the void created by an organization’s culture where that culture has prohibited decision-making at the lower levels of the organization, and the leader must provide the directive behavior to ensure that all tasks are accomplished?
In addition to being multidimensional, this discussion also illustrates that leader–culture fit is an important part of organizational effectiveness from a multilevel perspective. That is, leader–culture fit will likely have an impact on the leader, their followers, the work group, and the organization as a whole. Because of this, researchers will need to carefully consider the criteria of interest and match these with the most appropriate perspective of leadership. For example, when examining a manager’s job satisfaction and commitment, it would be most appropriate to examine their perceptions of their own behaviors. When examining job performance or unit effectiveness, it might be best to capture 360-degree ratings of leaders’ behaviors – this would allow for an examination of how these behaviors and their fit with culture uniquely influence performance criteria. Yet again, when interested in the relationship between leaders and their followers, it might be useful to examine fit from the perspective of both the leader and their subordinates. It is likely that both perspectives will add to the understanding of the impact of leader–culture fit.
Although we expect multilevel configurations of leader–culture fit that require different views of the leader, we believe it is important that culture reflect the aggregate of others’ beliefs about the cultural aspects under consideration. While it is possible to obtain this information from the leader, an aggregate of information from others will provide more information about the actual culture of a work group or organization, as opposed to the perceived culture (Jung et al., 2009). Support for using such aggregates in previous fit research was found by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005): although not directly assessing leader–culture fit, they found that studies using aggregates of individuals’ perception of the organization in fit research yielded larger effects than those in which a single individual rated the organizational level.
In addition to addressing the source of information, it is important to determine what type of leader–culture fit is going to be assessed. In the fit literature, three approaches to measuring fit are often differentiated: perceived fit, subjective fit, and objective fit (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006). Combined with the issue of the source of ratings, this indicates a vast number of ways that leader–culture fit can be addressed. We discuss each of these methods in this section and provide recommendations.
Perceived fit is considered a direct measure of fit and is obtained by asking an individual about their perceptions of fit with the environment (Edwards, 1991; French et al., 1974; Kristof, 1996). For leader–culture fit, this might be as simple as asking a leader if they believe that their behaviors match the behaviors valued by their organization’s culture. While assessment of leader–culture fit would be simple with this approach, one potential problem of assessing perceived fit is inaccuracies caused by human bias. Both Endler & Magnussen (1976) and French et al. (1974) argue that individuals have the propensity to interpret environmental cues in ways that allow them to maintain a positive self-concept. As such, their perceptions of leader–culture fit might be skewed positively or negatively depending on their attitudes towards the workplace. Note that from this perspective, perceived fit can be measured from a variety of viewpoints (e.g. leader’s self-perceived fit, supervisor’s perceived fit of leader’s behaviors, subordinates’ perceived fit of leader’s behaviors, etc.). Although we would encourage researchers to explore the objective-fit approach discussed later, the simplicity of measuring perceived fit makes it possible to quickly include this type of measure within other research opportunities. From this perspective, we encourage researchers to consider whether they can add these perceived-fit measures to other studies to help grow the initial literature on leader–culture fit.
Perceived fit is a direct measure of fit. French et al. (1974) have differentiated indirect measures of fit as being either subjective or objective. Subjective fit typically involves having the target provide ratings of both themselves and the environment, as they see them to be (Cable & Edwards, 2004). For example, if you asked a leader to describe their empowering behaviors and the organizational culture of empowerment, you would have the necessary information to compute subjective fit. While this would be possible, we again suggest that culture be measured at an aggregate level: that of the work group or of the entire organization. By doing this, we are limiting the potential bias of the leader (or other rating source) from distorting perceptions of fit.
French et al. (1974) describe objective fit as the match between the individual and the environment as they really are, independent of the individual’s perceptions. Unfortunately, as noted by Caplan (1987), objective measurement of both the person and the environment is a considerable challenge for researchers. For some aspects of the environment it is relatively easy to conceptualize an objective measure. For example, in examining the physical dimensions of the workspace or the quality of machinery available it should be relatively simple to acquire an objective measurement. Objective indices of job demand and control have also been gathered through job analysis (Elsass & Veiga, 1997). However, the number of environmental features that can be measured objectively is limited. The majority of topics to which researchers will want to apply leader–culture fit will mostly likely not conform to these approaches. In this case, the most objective measures of fit will be achieved when the ratings of neither the target nor the environment come from the object of the fit analysis (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2006). From this perspective, subordinate ratings of leadership can be matched with organizational culture to determine the level of leader–culture fit.
While it might seem better to get the most objective measures of fit, research in the stress and strain literature suggests that choosing between objective and subjective fit should be done carefully. While objective-fit measures help to remove the bias of the leader’s perspective, some dependent variables might actually be reliant upon this perspective. For example, Lazarus (1966) argues that objective stressors do not relate to strains as well as subjective stressors do. Specifically, strain is a function of how the target views these stressors. Likewise, if examining leader–culture fit from the perspective of subordinates, it might be best to get their perceptions of the leader’s behaviors, since this is the lens through which they view the workplace.
While these three methods of assessing fit should result in similar indices, past research indicates that they are only weakly related (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). Furthermore, Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis indicated that the pattern of relationships of perceived, subjective, and objective fit with organizational criteria varied depending on the criteria. For example, with person–job fit all three tended to equally predict job satisfaction, but with intent to quit the perceived-fit indices were a stronger predictor than the subjective- or objective-fit indices. Overall, we recommend that researchers examine measures of objective fit or a hybrid of objective/subjective fit in which leaders rate their own behaviors but culture is collected at the organization or work-group level. The advantage of this approach will be more fully realized when examining dependent variables that exist outside of the leader, such as perceptions of effectiveness.
While leader–culture fit has important implications for manager and organizational efficiency, it is a topic that has received almost no attention. Most of the research examining this topic has been indirect, focusing on national culture or leader–follower value congruence. In this section we review the literature related to leader–culture fit, discuss the difference between complementary and supplementary fit, and provide examples from our own research program.
Unfortunately, the current state of leader–culture fit research is sparse, with only marginally-related research addressing this topic. At the broader national-culture level, there is research attempting to link leadership behaviors to cultural values, but this doesn’t extend to the level of organizational culture. However, focusing even more narrowly, there is a growing body of literature examining leader–follower fit. While reviewed in this section, both of these miss what we believe is an important level in understanding leader–culture fit.
Given the spread of multinational corporations, it is not surprising that several studies have investigated national-cultural differences in leadership and leadership effectiveness. This level of cross-cultural investigation seeks to understand which leadership behaviors and styles are supported by different national cultures. At the very basic level, this research indicates that subordinates working with leaders from their own country of origin are more efficient and satisfied than subordinates working under a supervisor from another country (Testa, 2002). At a more complex level, it indicates that preferences for different leadership styles vary by cultural values, even amongst cultures that may appear similar to outside observers (Rodsuitti et al., 2002).
One method of examining cultural differences in leadership focuses on the leadership prototypes that subordinates hold (Lord et al., 1984). Lord et al.’s (1984) implicit-leadership theory holds that early in our work careers, or even earlier through societal exposure, we form a prototype of what a leader is supposed to be like. Work in this area indicates that the degree of match between a leader’s actual characteristics and this prototype influences the power given to the leader (Maurer & Lord, 1991), with the effects being strongest in the environment in which the prototype was formed (Lord et al., 2001). Furthermore, Gerstner & Day (1994) have found that these leadership prototypes systematically vary across cultures. Working outside of the implicit-leadership paradigm, Fein et al. (2011) have also found that individual differences in cultural values are linked to preferred leadership behaviors. The implication of this research is that leadership that matches the views espoused by the culture will be more effective than leadership that does not match the culturally-expected values.
Leaders acting in alignment with the national culture will be more effective than those whose behaviors are out of alignment (Euwema et al., 2007; Yukl et al., 2003). For example, Yukl et al. (2003) found that managers acting in alignment with the preferred management style were more effective at implementing and directing organizational change than those using techniques that were out of alignment. Furthermore, it appears that leader–culture fit at the national level influences not only effectiveness but also the level of strain experienced by employees. For example, Chen & Kao (2009) found that although paternalistic leadership was positively related to psychological health in Chinese workers, the same characteristic was actually negatively related to the psychological health of non-Chinese workers.
Moving away from national culture, there is a growing trend for researchers to examine PE fit within work groups or between leaders and followers (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Atwater & Dionne (2007) describe a process model of leader–follower fit whose primary implication is that leaders whose values and behaviors match those of their followers are more efficient and effective in enabling their followers to accomplish their work. While most of the literature focuses on subordinates (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), there is some research examining the impact of leader–culture fit from the leader’s perspective. Some of this examines culture, but from a perspective that is more akin to person–organization fit than the description of leader–culture fit that we provide.
Most of the leader–follower fit literature builds from the value-congruence literature (Edwards, 1991). At the broadest level, we can see leader–follower fit being a function of the attraction–selection–attrition process that shapes organizations (Schneider et al., 1995). Work examining this process has highlighted both how top leadership influences organizational culture (Giberson et al., 2009) and how differences in organizational culture influence perceived work requirements (Li et al., 2008). Moving down from top leadership, research indicates that when leaders’ behaviors and values match those of the subordinate they supervise, the subordinates experience greater satisfaction (Meglino et al., 1991) and exhibit higher levels of performance (Turban & Jones, 1988).
Other studies have also examined the impact of cultural fit on leaders, though not directly leader–culture fit. Both Lovelace & Rosen (1996) and Harris & Mossholder (1996) have directly examined how well managers believe their culture aligns with an idealized organizational culture. Although this is different from our definition of leader–culture fit, their results indicate that misfit leads to job dissatisfaction, intention to leave, greater stress, and lower levels of optimism about the organization’s future. Although idealized culture reflects the value-congruence perspective of person–job and person–organization fit, these results indicate that a misfit between a leader’s preferred method of operating and their perceptions of the organization’s culture results in negative outcomes. Research on leader–culture fit should more directly examine the alignment between leadership styles and actual organization culture, and the impact of this alignment on work outcomes.
In exploring issues of leader–culture fit it is also important to specify whether the fit relationship will be one of complementary or supplementary fit. These two types of fit represent two separate traditions in the fit literature, but both have important implications for leader–culture fit. In addition, it is likely that researchers will have to consider both in order to fully understand the complexities of leader–culture fit. We will illustrate the difference between these two approaches with results from Kotrba et al. (2011), who examined the impact of leader–culture fit along 12 dimensions on 360-degree ratings of leader effectiveness.
Complementary fit is obtained when either a person’s or an organization’s characteristics provide something that the other desires or needs in order to be effective (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Complementary fit can thus be achieved in one of two ways. First, the leader’s behaviors can fill a gap created by the organization’s culture. Second, the organization’s culture can balance the leader’s management style. This type of fit can be seen as arising from research on psychological need fulfillment (Edwards, 1991). From this perspective, the leader is supplying something to the organization that its culture is currently lacking, or vice versa.
An example of complementary leader–culture fit is illustrated by Kotrba et al. (2011) on the dimension of empowerment. As defined by these researchers, empowerment entails creating a sense of ownership and responsibility amongst individuals at all levels of an organization by ensuring that they have the authority, initiative, and ability to manage their own work. The results, shown in figure 6.2, indicate that leaders illustrating many empowering behaviors are rated the most effective in organizational cultures that are low in empowerment, while leaders showing few empowering behaviors are rated the highest in cultures high in empowerment. In this example, fit is complementary because leaders who possess something different from the organization are viewed as more effective than those who possess the same characteristics as it.
Figure 6.2 Complementary-fit example for empowerment.
Supplementary fit, on the other hand, exists when the leader and the organization show matching characteristics (Kristof, 1996). Arising from the value-congruence literature discussed earlier, this tradition indicates that fit will be achieved when the leader and the culture show matching levels on the dimensions being examined. Kotrba et al. (2011) did not find any examples of perfect supplementary fit; however, the dimension of vision illustrated supplementary fit at the high and low ends of the spectrum. Vision focused on whether the organization had a shared view of the future, embodying core values and providing direction, and whether the leader engaged in behaviors to create a sense of this. As shown in figure 6.3, leaders who engaged in a high level of vision-related behavior were rated as being more effective in organizations with high levels of culture, while leaders who did not engage in these behaviors were rated as being more effective in organizations with a low level of vision culture. Had the fit been perfect, the center of figure 6.3 would also be elevated, creating a ridge running from the bottom-center corner to the top-center corner, indicating that symmetry between a leader’s behaviors and an organization’s culture leads to increased ratings of effectiveness. Instead, fit only appears to be an issue in cultures with either high or low vision values.
Figure 6.3 Suplementary-fit example for vision.
Note that although we use the terms “supplementary fit” and “complementary fit,” in the examples provided in this section both are measured as objective-fit indices. Recall that this means that two separate sources provided the ratings—leadership ratings were provided by 360-degree ratings, while culture was an aggregate of multiple ratings of the organization’s culture. This is important because a large number of studies examining supplementary and complementary fit will measure these as either perceived- or subjective-fit indices. For supplementary fit, this typically involves asking whether the individual is receiving the “right” amount of the characteristic in question. Measures of complementary fit will often focus on how important the characteristic is to the individual. As described earlier, leader–culture fit is framed differently. Specifically, it looks at the interactive relationship between a leader’s behaviors and the organization’s culture. That being said, researchers utilizing self-reports for subjective fit might want to consider both types of fit, as Cable & Edwards (2004) found both to be predictive in the same scenario.
Although we believe that leader–culture fit is an important framework in which to understand both leadership and organizational effectiveness, several issues have slowed the development of research into this topic. First is the subject of commensurate measures: as with actual measures, there are issues as to how fit should be quantified. Second, as a new area of research, the study of leader–culture fit would benefit from being more strongly anchored to existing theories of organizational behavior. In this section we discuss each of these issues in order to identify ways of better leveraging leader–culture fit for the future.
Unless working with purely perceived measures of fit, researchers seeking to examine fit must identify measures for both the target leaders and the culture. One of the requirements of conducting this type of fit research is the need for commensurate measures of both the person and the environment (Caplan, 1987; Edwards, 1991). That is, both the person and the environment need to be measured using the same content dimensions. Without commensurate measures, it is more difficult to argue that high levels of fit indicate alignment between an individual and an organization (Kristof, 1996). Unfortunately, leaders’ behaviors and organizational culture are hardly ever measured on the same dimensions. We believe that this is one of the major contributing factors to the lack of research on leader–culture fit, despite the relative importance of both topics.
An exception to the practice of measuring leaders and cultures on different metrics can be seen with the Denison model (Denison, 1997; Denison & Mishra, 1995). Originally developed to measure culture along four dimensions, the Denison model was also used as the foundation from which to describe effective leadership behaviors within organizations. As such, this model provides a unique opportunity to examine the fit between leaders and culture. While this has been beneficial for us, there is a strong need for the development of other commensurate measures that can be made publically available. Interesting initial work in this process can be seen in Dierdorff et al. (2009), who begin linking work context to role requirements in terms of the O*NET framework. Similarly, work measuring organizational culture in terms of transformational leadership appears to be a good start towards creating commensurate measures in this area (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Sarros et al., 2002).
A second issue that leader–culture-fit researchers will have to consider is how to operationalize their definition of fit. Fit can be conceptualized in many different ways, but each provides slightly different information, with different associated costs. Much of the early research examining fit made use of various difference scores, with the difference in measures representing different functions of fit (Edwards, 1991; Edwards & Parry, 1993). While difference scores only focus on a single dimension, research on profile similarity examines scores across dimensions or items to determine the fit between the target and the environment. Note, however, that both the similarity and the distance indices have been strongly criticized as suffering from methodological problems and constraints (Edwards, 1993, 1994).
New approaches to examining fit offer the potential to circumvent the problems associated with difference scores and profile indices but still provide a corresponding assessment of fit between commensurate dimensions. One such approach is that of polynomial regression and response-surface methodology (Edwards, 1993; Edwards & Parry, 1993). Polynomial regression provides a familiar framework through which to examine the relationship between fit and a criterion, but perhaps its strongest feature is the ability to graph a three-dimensional surface plot in order to examine the complexities of PE fit (figures 6.2 and 6.3). Although polynomial regression does not provide any fit indices per se, Shanock et al. (2010) give a helpful tutorial on creating surface values, which indicate the extent to which fit influences the dependent variable. Another approach was introduced by Cheung (2009) in order to examine fit between latent variables. This approach, the latent-congruence model, is similar to polynomial regression in that it examines the effects of congruence between the person and the environment. Cheung, however, argues that this approach is capable of modeling both the congruence and the component effects of both the person and the environment. Recent criticisms of polynomial regression in fit research suggest that it focuses primarily on just the components of the person and the environment (Yang et al., 2008).
A third feature that has limited the advancement of leader–culture fit research is the lack of a theoretical framework. While there are no uniting theories of leadership and culture, the existing leadership research is full of theories that address the underlying issues. For example, going back as far as Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory and House’s (1971) path–goal theory, leadership researchers have posited that leaders will only be effective when their behavior is matched to the environment in which they function. This role of interactionalism has been more fully considered in more recent work such as Uhl-Bien et al.’s (2007) leadership-complexity theory and work bridging transformational leadership to organizational culture (Sarros et al., 2002).
The relationship between culture and leadership appears to be reciprocal—top leaders create and maintain an organizational culture, which in turn influences the values, attitudes, and behaviors of middle and entry-level leaders. Although leader–culture fit has not been specifically studied in the published literature, we believe that there is value in examining the match between a leader’s behaviors and the culture in which they work. While research hasn’t examined this at the level we discuss, current research does suggest that fit is important at the national level and at the leader–follower level. Expansion of this research will help determine what aspects of leader–culture fit are determinants of leader and organizational effectiveness.
Although there are a variety of approaches that researchers can take to examining leader–culture fit, we offer the following recommendations. First, although studies of perceived fit are of limited value, the ease of collecting this data should motivate researchers to start thinking about adding questions concerning leader–culture fit. Given the lack of published findings, this research can begin shaping our knowledge about this phenomenon. Second, while studies of subjective fit will be more important, researchers should utilize 360-degree measurement systems in order to also obtain the most objective fit indices possible. This practice will likely tell us more about the impact of fit than just examining leaders’ self-reports. Third, it is important to measure culture at the aggregate level in order to ensure that the actual values of the organization are being captured, not just the leader’s values. Although these recommendations may be difficult to achieve in practice, they offer the best hope of leveraging leader–culture fit for the future.
Arboleda, A., Morrow, P.C., Crum, M.R., & Shelley, M.C. (2003). Management practices as antecedents of safety culture within the trucking industry: similarities and differences by hierarchical level. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 189–197.
Atwater, L. & Dionne, S. (2007). A process model of leader-follower fit. In C. Ostroff & T.A. Judge, editors. Perspectives on Organizational Fit. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 183–208.
Bass, B. & Avolia, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational cultural. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–633.
Cable, D.M. & Edwards, J.R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834.
Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267.
Chatman, J.A. & Cha, S.E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management Review, 45, 20–34.
Chen, H. & Kao, H.S. (2009). Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates’ psychological health. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2533–2546.
Cheung, G.W. (2009). A multiple-perspective approach to data analysis in congruence research. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 63–68.
Colbert, A.E. (2004). Understanding the Effects of Transformational Leadership: The Mediating Role of Leader-Follower Value Congruence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Denison, D.R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 4–22.
Denison, D.R. (1997). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Denison Consulting.
Denison, D.R. & Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204–223.
Dickson, M.W., Resick, C.J., & Hanges, P.J. (2006). Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487–505.
Dierdorff, E.C., Rubin, R.S., & Morgeson, F.P. (2009). The milieu of managerial work: an integrative framework linking work context to role requirements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 972–988.
Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson, editors. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, volume 6. Oxford, UK: Wiley. pp. 283–357.
Edwards, J.R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
Edwards, J.R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Edwards, J.R. & Parry, M.E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
Elsass, P.M. & Veiga, J.F. (1997). Job control and job strain: a test of three models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 195–211.
Endler, N.S. & Magnussen, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Euwema, M.C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 1035–1057.
Fein, E.C., Vasiliu, C., & Tziner, A. (2011). Individual values and preferred leadership behaviors: a study of Romanian managers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 515–535.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
French, J.R.P., Rodgers, W.L., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. Coelho, D. Hamburg, & J. Adams, editors. Coping and Adaptation. New York: Basic Books. pp. 316–333.
Georgada, K. & Xenikou, A. (2007). Transformational and transactional leadership: the augmenting effect on organizational culture and identification with the organization. The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 14, 410–423.
Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121–134.
Giberson, T.R., Resick, C.J., Dickson, M.W., Mitchelson, J.K., Randall, K.R., & Clark, M.A. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: linking CEO characteristics to cultural values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 123–137.
Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22, 527–547.
Hartnell, C.A. & Walumbwa, F.O. (2011). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: toward integrating a multilevel framework. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, and M. Peterson, editors. The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, 2nd edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 225–248.
Hecht, T.D. & Allen, N.J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 155–178.
Hoffman, B.J. & Woehr, D.J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389–399.
House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.
Jansen, K.J. & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 193–212.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H.T.O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: a review of the literature. Public Administration Review, 69, 1087–1096.
Kavanagh, M. & Ashkanasy, N. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management, 17, S81–S103.
Kotrba, L., Burns, G.N., & Smerek, R. (2011). Assessing the impact of leader-culture fit on managerial effectiveness. In L. Nieminen (Chair) Challenging the Positive View of P-O Fit within the ASA Model. Presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 59–67.
Krishnan, V.R. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15, 19–33.
Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A.L. & Stevens, C.K. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1083–1095.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Li, W., Wang, Y., Taylor, P., Shi, K., & He, D. (2008). The influence of organizational culture on work-related personality requirement ratings: a multilevel analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 366–384.
Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., Harvey, J.L., & Hall, R.J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multi-level consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311–338.
Lord, R.G., Foti, R., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.
Lovelace, K. & Rosen, B. (1996). Differences in achieving person-organization fit among diverse groups of managers. Journal of Management, 22, 703–722.
Maurer, T.J. & Lord, R.G. (1991). An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 821–839.
Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., & Adkins, C.L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a leader: an examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44, 481–495.
Naor, M., Goldstein, S.M., Linderman, K.W., & Schroeder, R.G. (2008). The role of culture as driver of quality management and performance: infrastructure versus core quality practices. Decision Sciences, 39, 671–702.
Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 766–788.
Resick, C.J., Baltes, B.B., & Shantz, C.W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1446–1455.
Rodsuitti, M., Champathes, & Swierczek, F.W. (2002). Leadership and organizational effectiveness in multinatioinal enterprises in southeast Asia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 250-259.
Sarros, J., Gray, J., & Densten, I. (2002). Leadership and its impact on organizational culture. International Journal of Business Studies, 10, 1–26.
Shanock, L.R., Baran, B.E., Gentry, W.A., Pattison, S.C., & Heggestad, E.D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: a powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 543–554.
Schein, E. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 13–28.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W., & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA framework: an update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.
Testa, M.R. (2002). Leadership dyads in the cruise industry: the impact of cultural congruency. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21, 425–441.
Toor, S. & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533–547.
Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations. Organizational Science, 2, 149–169.
Turban, D.B. & Jones, A.P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228–234.
Ulh-Bien, M. & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: a meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 631–650.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.
Yang, L.Q., Levine, E.L., Smith, M.A., Ispas, D., & Rossi, M.E. (2008). Person-environment fit or person plus environment: a meta-analysis of studies using polynomial regression analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 311–321.
Yukl, G., Fu, P.P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resting change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 68–82.
Wu, T., Lin, C., & Shiau, S. (2010). Predicting safety culture: the roles of employer, operations manager and safety professional. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 423–431.