107
1 INTRODUCTION
Understandinghowfutureleadersperceivedifferent
leadershipattributesanddimensionsisimportant,as
itislikelytoplayaroleinthefuturedevelopmentof
organizationalbehavior.Leadershipattributescanbe
perceived as inhibiting, contributing or having no
impact on desired leadership. Leadership can be
defined as “the ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute towards the
effectivenessandsuccessoftheorganizationsofwhichthey
are members” (House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, &
Sullyde Luque 2013, p. 17). This paper attempts to
mapoutwhichpartsofleadershipthatareperceived
tobepositive,neutralornegativetofuturemaritime
leaders and managers. Our participantsare defined
asfuturemaritimeleadersbecausetheyarecurrently
master students in maritime management, and a
number of them will take jobs in the maritime
industrywheretheyhave tomanagepersonnel and
projects.
According to the Culturally Endorsed Implicit
Leadership Theory (CLT), cognitive schemas about
traits and abilities of the ideal leader are shared
among individuals belonging to a common culture
(Javidan,Dorfman,SullydeLuque, &House,2006).
Thus, understanding which leadership qualities the
future maritime leaders endorse can help us
Maritime Managers of the Future
–
What do They
Think is Good Leadership?
B.A.B.Fjærli,K.I.Øvergård&T.V.Westerberg
BuskerudandVestfoldUniversityCollege,Borre,Norway
ABSTRACT:Themaritimeindustryismultinationalandmulticultural.Understandingwhichleadershipskills
thatareeffectiveinsuchenvironmentsisnecessarytobeasuccessfulleader.Workexperienceinmultinational
companies will give a different insight into which management practices are seen as desirable for fut
ure
maritimeleaderswithinaglobalindustry.Accordingtotraittheoriestherearepropertiesthatcanbetrained
andsomethatarelinkedtopersonality,whicharenoteasilytrainable.Sinceleadershipskillsareacombination
of both trainable and not so trainable skills, it is necessary to understand what types of skills are seen as
endorsed, and not endorsed by the fut
ure maritime managers. The present paper shows results from a
questionnaire study using the GLOBE Leadership questionnaire where 52 master of maritime management
students(i.e.maritimemanagersofthefuture)rates112differentleadershipskillsaccordingtowhichdegree
these skills support outsta
nding leadership or not. The results show which leadership skills the maritime
leaders of the future believe will support outstanding leadership. Contrasts between participant with and
without work experience form multinationalcorporations will be shown – giving an indication of how the
perceptionofleadershipischangedthroughworkexperienceinamulti‐culturalcontext.Theresultwillgivean
insight in how fut
ure management practices should be. Knowledge of the universally endorsed maritime
leadershipskillscanbeusedasaguidelineintherecruitmentprocessformaritimemanagers.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 9
Number 1
March 2015
DOI:10.12716/1001.09.01.13
108
understanding how leadership may change in the
not‐sodistantfuture.
ThisresearchprojecthasusedpartsoftheGLOBE
Phase 2 Alpha questionnaire to measure the
desirability or disdain for a variety of leadership
attributes.Itcontainsquestionsabout112leadership
attributes, each attribute being measured with one
question/item.
These 112 items then are aggregated
into 21 primary leadership dimensions. The 21
primary leadership dimensions are then aggregated
intosixgloballeadershipscales.
Six global leadership scales. A total of 21
primary leadership dimensions form the six
culturally endorsed leadership scales
(charismatic/value‐based, team‐oriented, self‐
protective, participative,humane‐orientedand
autonomousleadership).Theyareshortlyexplicated
inthefollowingparagraphs.
Charismatic/Value‐Based leadership. A
Charismatic/Value‐Based leader has the ability to
motivate and
inspire others, and because of strong
core values expects high performance. This scale
consist of six of the 21 primary leadership
dimensions: Visionary, Inspirational, Self‐Sacrifice,
Integrity, Decisive, and Performance‐oriented
(Dorfman,Javidan,Hanges,Dastmalchian,&House,
2012).
Team oriented leadership. This type of leaders
facilitates effective team building
and instills
commitment to goals among the team members
(House,Hanges,Ruiz‐Quintanilla,Dorfman,Javidan,
Dickson,&Gupta,1999).Thisscaleconsistsoffiveof
the21primaryleadershipdimensions:Collaborative
Team Orientation, Team Integrator, Diplomatic,
Malevolent,andAdministrativelycompetent)
Self‐protective Leadership. This type of leaders
areconcerned with
face‐saving and promoting own
status to increase safety and security of the
individualandgroup.Thisscaleconsistsoffiveof
the21primaryleadershipdimensions:Self‐centered,
Status conscious, Conflict inducer, Face‐saver,
Procedural(Houseetal.,2013).
Participative Leadership. Participative leaders
involve others in decision‐making and
implementation
(House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman,
&Gupta,2004).Thisscale consists of two ofthe 21
primaryleadershipdimensions:AutocraticandNon‐
participative.
Humane‐OrientedLeadership.Emphasizesbeing
compassionate,generous,supportiveandconsiderate
asaleader(ibid).Thisscaleconsistsoftwoofthe21
primary leadership dimensions: Modesty and
Humane
orientation.
AutonomousLeadership.Thisdimensionreflects
independentandindividualisticleadershipattributes
(Houseetal.,1999).Thisscaleconsistsofoneofthe
21primaryleadershipdimensionsandseveralitems:
Individualistic, Independent, Autonomous, and
Unique.
1.1 ResearchQuestions
This paper attempts to identify which leadership
skills that future maritime leaders believe will
contribute or inhibitoutstandingleadership.
Furthermore, the results will indicate if multi
national work experiencehas an implication on the
perceptiononleadership.
2 METHOD
2.1 Participants
Thesampleconsistedofatotalof52respondents(19
women and 23 men, 10 respondents did not define
their gender) fulltime and part‐time students of
maritimemanagementstudiesatamajoreducational
institutioninNorway.Theagerangewasfrom22to
52 with a mean of 28,5 (SD = 1,3 years). Not all
respondents responded to the all questions in the
survey,hencethereissomevariationinthenumber
ofrespondentsfordifferentitemsanddimensions.
The group of participants where multinational –
with a slight overweight of people from Northern
Europe. Otherwise the rest of the participantscame
fromallcontinentsexceptAustralia/Oceania.Atotal
of 18 students indicated that they had worked in a
multinationalcompany,while17
indicatedthatthey
did not have this experience. There where no
statisticalrelationshipbetweenthenationalityofthe
students and their work experience with work in
multinational companies as measured by a Chi‐
squaretest.
2.2 Questionnaire
The GLOBE Phase 2 Alpha questionnaire (Globe,
2006) was used to mea sure the future leader´s
opinionsonwhichleadershipskillsthatcontributeto
outstanding leadership. Each leadership skill was
measuredbya7‐pointratingscalewherethepossible
answerswhere‘1=greatlyinhibits’,‘2=somewhat
inhibits’,‘3=slightlyinhibits’, ‘4=hasnoimpact’,‘5
=contributesslightly’,‘6=contributessomewhat’,‘7
=contributesgreatly’.Eachoftherespectivenumbers
for each answer was used in data analysis, thus
leaving4astheneutraloption‘hasnoimpact’.
Atwosamplequestionsarepresentedbelow.The
participantsweretoindicatethedegreetowhichthis
particularleadershipskillinhibitedorcontributedto
outstandingleadershipbywritingdownthenumber
thatcorrespondedclosestotheiropinion.
CharacteristicDefinition
orBehavior
_______________________________________________
____2‐1 Diplomatic =Skilledatinterpersonal
relations,
tactful.
____2‐2 Evasive=Refrainsfrommaking
negative
commentstomaintain
good
relationsandsaveface.
109
2.3 Re‐codingofanswers
Theanswerswerere‐codedbeforestatisticalanalysis
bysubtracting4fromeachscore–therebyensuring
thattheneutraloptionwas0andthattheleadership
skills that inhibited outstanding leadership skills
where negative while skills that contributed to
outstandingleadershipskillsbecamepositive.
3 RESULTS
One‐sample t‐tests tested whether the leadership
skillswheredifferentfromtheneutralvalue0(e.g.it
tested whether a leadership skill where rated as
either inhibiting or contributing to outstanding
leadership). Results where accepted as statistically
significantifthe95%ConfidenceInterval
(CI)didnot
include zero (0). Positive means indicate that skills
contribute to outstanding leadership and negative
means indicate that the skill inhibits outstanding
leadership. A detailed overview of the results is
presentedintable1.Theterms‘Lower’and‘Upper’
refers to the lower and upper limits of the
95%
Confidence Interval for the mean score of each
variable.
Of the six global leadership scales four global
leadership scales were evaluated as contributing to
outstanding leadership. Team Oriented Leadership
(Mean=1.5,95%CI[1.3,1.8])andCharismatic/Value‐
basedLeadership(Mean=1.5,95%CI[1.28,1.8]were
rated as
equally contributing to outstanding
leadership. Participative Leadership ranked third
(Mean = 1.2 95% CI [1, 1.5]) and Humane Oriented
Leadership (Mean = 1, 95% CI [0.8, 1.2]) ranked last
amongthepositiveleadershipscales.
ThetwoleadershipskillsSelf‐protectiveLeadership
(Mean =‐0.6, 95% CI [‐0.8,‐0.4]) and
Autonomous
Leadership (Mean =‐0.5, 95% CI [‐0.8,‐0.2]) were
found to inhibit outstanding leadership. A more
detailedoverviewisgiveninTable 1.Table1shows
the different leadership skills, ‘lower’ and ‘upper’
refers to the end points of the 95% confidence
interval.Aconfidenceintervalthatdoes
notcontain0
indicates that the leadership skill is seen as either
inhibiting(ifthemeanisnegative)orcontributing(if
themeanispositive).
Effectofexperienceinmultinationalcompanies.
Two‐tailed independent samples t‐tests indicated
that, with exception the primary leadership skill
Procedural/Bureaucratic (belonging to the Self
Protective
leadership dimension), there were no
observable statistical differences (e.g. the 95% CI
contains 0) in the perception of leadership skills
between those with experience in multinational
corporationsandthosewithout.
Those with experience from multinational
companies (Mean =‐0.012, SD = 0.43) rated the
leadership skill Procedural/Bureaucratic as less
positive
than those without experience from
multinational companies (Mean = 0.51, SD = 0.56;
t
(31)=‐3.049, Mean difference =‐0.524, 95% CI of
difference[‐0.879,‐0.174]).
4 DISCUSSION
Thisquestionnaire‐basedstudywithamultinational
sampleofmasterstudentsofmaritimemanagement
identified that four global leadership dimension
(Team Oriented Leadership, Charismatic/Value‐based
Leadership, Participative Leadership, Humane Oriented
Leadership)whereseenas
contributingtooutstanding
leadership. Two leadership skills (Self‐protective
LeadershipandAutonomousLeadership) whereratedas
inhibiting outstanding leadership. Experience from
multinationalcompaniesdidnotmakeadifferenceto
these findings with the exception of the
Procedural/bureaucraticleadershipskillwherethose
with experience from multinational companies saw
the procedural/bureaucratic skill
somewhat more
negativethanthosewithoutinternationalleadership
background.
Ourfindingsareinaccordancewith thoseofthe
GLOBEstudybyfindingthesamerankingbetween
thesixgloballeadershipskills(seee.g.table4inDen
Hartogetal.,1998),aswellasreplicatingthefindings
that Autonomous and
Self‐Protective leadership is
seenasinhibitingoutstandingleadership.
The global leadership dimension of
Charisma/Value‐basedleadershipiscloselyrelatedto
transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990),
which both is argued being a universally endorsed
leadership styles (Bass, 1985; Den Hartog, House,
Hanges, Ruiz‐Quintanilla & Dorfman, 1999). As in
the
aforementionedfindings,futuremaritimeleaders
also rate Charisma/Value‐based leadership as
contributing to outstanding leadership. In the
GLOBE‐ studies (Dorfman et al., 2012) charismatic
leadershiprankedhightomediuminallpartsofthe
world with the Middle East as only exception
(Javidan,Dorfman,Luque,House,2006).
The Team Oriented
leadership is on a wordily
basis rated medium or medium‐high/medium‐low,
with Latin America as only exception where it was
ratedhigh(ibid),whileinthisresearchprojectTeam
OrientationandCharismatic/Value‐basedleadership
was rated the highest of the dimensions. Whether
these differences reflect real differences due to
characteristics of the maritime industry or whether
theseareduetootherfactorremaintobeseen.
Thelack ofdifferences betweenthosewith work
experience from multinational companies andthose
without was surprising – especially because of the
observeddifferencesbetweendifferentcultureswhen
it comes to which leadership
skills is seen as
good/bad(DenHartogetal.,1998).Itmightbethat
thosethataredrawnto amaritime career are more
globallyorientedhencethattheyappreciateasimilar
setofleadershipskills.Itmightalsobethatthejoint
situation that the students have found themselves
during
schoolingandtrainingatthemasterprogram
havegiventhemacommonviewofgoodleaderships
skills. These and other possible answers can be the
objectforfutureresearchprojects.
Limitations. Our research has utilized a limited
sampleofmasterstudentsormaritimemanagement,
hencerepresentingtheopinionsoffuture
employees
andleadersinthemaritimeindustry.Thuswecannot
110
makeclaimsofthenatureofcurrentleadershipinthe
maritimeindustry.
111
5 CONCLUSION
The findings clearly show that the sample of future
maritime leaders ratedTeam Oriented and
Charismatic/Value‐Based leadership as very positive
and contributing to outstanding leadership.
Furthermore,theresultsshowthatHumaneOriented
leadership is positive contributing somewhat to
outstanding leadership. And finally that Self‐
protectiveleadershipand
Autonomousleadershipare
rated as strictly negative and inhibiting for
outstandingleadership.
There are almost no differences between those
with experience in multinational corporations and
thosewithout.However,itstillremainstoseeifthere
aredifferencesbetweenleadershipstylesindifferent
countries in the maritime industry, or whether the
maritime industry is more affected by the global
marketsituation.
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and behavior beyond
expectations.NewYork:FreePress.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1990). The implications of
Transactional leadership and Transformational
leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational
Development. Research in Organizational Change and
Development,4(1),231‐272.
Dorfman,P., Javidan,M., Hanges, P.,Dastmalchian, A.,
&
House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into
theintriguing world of culture andleadership. Journal
of World Business, 47(4), 504‐518.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.0
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., & Ruiz‐
Quintanilla, S. R. (1999). Culture specific and cross‐
culturallygeneralizableimplicitleadershiptheories:
Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership
universallyendorsed?The LeadershipQuarterly, 10(2),
219‐256.
Globe (2006). GLOBE research survey, form Alpha. The
Globe Project. Available at:
http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ms/globe/pdf/G
LOBE_Phase_2_Alpha_Questionnaire.pdf [last checked
February1st2015]
House,R.J.,Dorfman,P.W.,Javidan,M.,Hanges,P.J.,&
Sully de Luque, M. F. (2013).Strategic Leadership
Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership
BehaviorandEffectivenessin24Countries.Thousand
Oaks,California:Sage
House,R.J.,Hanges,P.J.,Javidan,M.,Dorfman,P.W.,&
Gupta,V.(2004).Culture,Leadership,andOrganization.
The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
California:Sage.
House,R.J.,Hanges,
P.J.,Ruiz‐Quintanilla,S.A.,Dorfman,
P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (1999).
Cultural influences on leadership and organizations:
Project GLOBE. Advances in global leadership, 1, 171‐
233
Javidan,M.,Dorfman,P.W.,SullydeLuque,M.,&House,
R. J. (2006).In the Eyeof
the Beholder: Cross Cultural
LessonsinLeadershipfromProjectGlobe. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67‐90 doi:
10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410