Global & Culturally Diverse Leadership in the 21st Century
American Indian Leadership Might Benefit Global Leaders Working in Collectivist Contexts
By Amoneeta Beckstein [Aniyunwiya]
Epilogue by Antonio Jimenez-Luque, Gayle Skawen:nio Morse, and Joseph E. Trimble
Amoneeta’s (PhD, LPC) mother is Jewish Israeli and his father is Aniyunwiya from the Anigilohi clan. Dr. Amoneeta is the Counseling Center Director and a psychology faculty member at Webster University Thailand. He specializes in multicultural counseling and positive and indigenous psychologies. As an ethical influencer, he advocates for positive mental health and social justice. He is a proponent of leveraging psychology to enhance leadership practices that contribute to society’s growth, resilience, and life enhancement. The American Psychological Association’s Division 35, Section 6 (Alaska Native/American Indian/Indigenous Women) honored Amoneeta with the Sage Award.
Antonio Jimenez-Luque, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego. From 2004-2013, Jimenez-Luque was the Coordinator for the International Cooperation for Development at the University of Barcelona Solidarity Foundation working with universities, grassroots organizations, and social movements in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. In 2014, he moved to the United States to work at Gonzaga University for the Associate Vice-President for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion as Intercultural Research Associate, and taught a variety of classes including Leading Across Cultures. Since 2018, he has been teaching at the University of San Diego and developing his research agenda on issues of leadership and social justice from a critical, global, and intercultural perspective.
In 2020 Gayle Skawen:nio Morse, Ph.D., was the recipient of the American Psychological Association’s Sweetgrass Award. The Sweetgrass Award honors a psychology professional who advances indigenous values through outstanding professionalism and service. Dr. Morse’s work in education, research and clinical practice highlights the connections between mental health, community health and environmental stewardship. She is a professor of Counseling and Community Psychology and director of the graduate Psychology programs at Russell Sage College, and she frequently speaks and writes about ethics, social justice, women’s issues, student learning and the neuropsychological effects of environmental toxins. Her recent scholarship includes an article about psychoanalytic and indigenous understandings of dreams in “Black, Indigenous, Women of Color Talk Back: Decentering Normative Psychoanalysis,” a special edition of the journal Studies in Gender and Sexuality published in June 2020, and “A Detoxification Intervention for Gulf War Illness: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial,” coauthored by Morse, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in October 2019. Dr. Morse is a New York state licensed psychologist with a private practice. She is an enrolled member of the Mohawk tribe and former president of the Society of Indian Psychologists, which represents indigenous psychologists in the United States and Canada. “My Kanienkehaka (Mohawk) background has given me the foundation to do the work that I love,” said Morse. “The Kanienkehaka principles of Skennen, Kariwiio and Kasastensera — or peace, good mind and strength — are achieved by respecting the environment and people, and are what fuel my efforts.”
Joseph E. Trimble (PhD, Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma) retired in June 2020. Throughout his career, he focused his efforts on promoting psychological and sociocultural research with indigenous populations, especially American Indians and Alaska Natives, and he is involved in research on the influence of cultural diversity leadership styles and practices. Some of his career highlights include being a Senior Scholar at the Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research and a Research Associate for the National Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. He was a President’s Professor at the Center for Alaska Native Health Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and in 2017-2018 he was a Visiting Scholar in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Outside the academy, he has served on numerous scientific review committees and research panels for federal agencies such as NIAAA, NIMH, NIDA, NIH, and National Academy of Sciences, among others. He has presented over 180 papers and invited addresses and generated over 150 publications, including 22 authored or edited books. He is the recipient of the Peace and Social Justice Award given by APA’s Division of Peace Psychology and the Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest from the American Psychological Foundation. Trimble is co-editor with Jean Lau Chin and Joseph Garcia of ILA’s 2017 book Global and Culturally Diverse Leaders and Leadership: New Dimensions and Challenges for Business, Education, and Society.
We live in an increasingly globalized world where people immigrate for work or other reasons, students study abroad, and multinational companies have a presence in many divergent cultural contexts. This results in “the transmission of cultural values and managerial practices from the United States to the rest of the world” (Kulkarni et al., 2010 p. 105). Through expanding globalization and consumerism, along with the fact that the U.S. is the number one importer and exporter in the world (Kose et al., 2017), the U.S. has a significant amount of power to impose its particular views, including its views on leadership, on the rest of the world.
In this globalized world, mainstream leadership theories should not be universally applied across cultures as they do not always work in different cultural contexts (Gambrell & Fritz, 2012) and may even be a global “threat” (Blume [Aniyunwiya & Choctaw]1 et al., 2020). Instead, we need multicultural understanding and culturally appropriate leadership for the 21st century (Trimble & Chin, 2019). As part of this intercultural adaptation, leaders need to develop new skills and behaviors that lend themselves to more culturally competent practices (Jogulu, 2010). An understanding of American Indian leadership values can help contribute to the application of multiculturally competent leadership, particularly in collectivist contexts.
Over the years, I have had the opportunity to study, live, and work in Israel, Japan, Mexico, and Thailand. While vastly different, these cultures all have one thing in common: They tend to be more collectivistic than Western culture, particularly American culture. Even Israeli culture, which is more Westernized than the other countries, has been described as a “meld of collectivism and individualism” (Oyserman, 1993, p. 993), and Israeli high school students have been found to be more collectivistic than individualistic (Sagy et al., 2001).
While working or studying in both private companies and universities, I observed various leadership styles with varying levels of success. In most settings, the majority of leaders tended to come from Westernized, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al., 2010) backgrounds, whereas the majority of the students, clients, and employees who worked with the leaders I observed tended to be non-WEIRD populations with vastly different worldviews, cultural values, and ways of being. Indeed, many current leadership theories reflect this imbalance and are both gender and ethnically biased (Trimble & Chin, 2019).
Leadership practices that are more individualistic tend to be hierarchical rather than egalitarian (Blume et al., 2020) and to diverge from more collectivistic practices. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to directly apply Western ways in collectivistic societies (Kulkarni et al., 2010). In fact, if leaders working cross-culturally do not have cultural knowledge or do not apply it appropriately, it could lead to adverse consequences for the organization and people involved (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 1998). Several of the organizations and universities I have worked for or studied at have either closed entirely or are in the process of shutting down. While it would be a stretch to blame an organization’s failure solely on leadership style, it likely contributed.
There are certainly great advantages to having the privilege to work or study abroad and invaluable, positive experience often results from it. However, there are also many instances where, at best, someone’s feelings are hurt and, at worst, people are traumatized. Such cultural blunders can cost a company or university a lot, and in more ways than just financial loss.
Even when speaking the same language, what is being said may not be interpreted in the same way by the recipient based on their cultural background and worldview. It is not so much the literal messages being lost in translation, since the words themselves are usually understood, but rather the cultural meanings that may be lost. Additionally, often English is used as the universal language. Hence, linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1997) contributes to those who are native speakers of English having greater power in such interactions.
Furthermore, intercultural interactions are complicated by the power differentials involved and huge differences in power distances between leaders and followers in different cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Couple that with many collectivistic values — such as cultural humility, generally less assertiveness, and even factors such as shyness about speaking a foreign language — that can factor into giving those from collectivist cultures less power and voice in contexts dominated by Western leaders. Another factor is followers in collectivistic cultures may not want to individually speak for the group or against leaders. Similarly, American Indians have been found to prefer group decision-making and accountability over individualistic ways (Bryant, 1996) and might value bottom-up rather than hierarchical leadership (Jimenez-Luque, 2020).
The practice of bringing Westernized leadership into other cultures without some adaptation and adjustment is likely to fail or, at the very least, not be as successful as it could be. Therefore, it is recommended that leaders practice cultural humility, conduct a thorough assessment of the context they work in to better understand it, and find multiculturally appropriate and competent ways to adapt their leadership styles to fit the collectivist context in order to increase the chances of success. Much as it is seen as an ethical necessity to consider culture within a counseling relationship (Arredondo & Toporek, 2004), multicultural competence and inclusivity should also be emphasized in leadership (Trimble & Chin, 2019) training and development.
To assist individualistic leaders working in collectivistic societies, American Indian leadership values might serve as a bridge. Indeed, it has been suggested that American Indian leadership might benefit those in non-American Indian contexts (Hart, 2006). Since American Indians tend to be more collectivistic than individualistic (Bahr et al., 1972; Trafimow & Smith, 1998), I propose that it might be more appropriate to utilize American Indian leadership styles in other more collectivistic cultures than the more Westernized American leadership styles often utilized when leaders come from a more individualistic culture.
There are some aspects of traditional American Indian leadership that are known, although the way pre-colonization leadership was practiced likely varied greatly and is not entirely known (Blume et al., 2020). With the caveat to be cautious of overgeneralizing (Jimenez-Luque, 2021), American Indian other-oriented values such as interpersonal cooperation and harmony (Alfred [Kanienkehake], 2009) and leadership values such as “putting others first” (Gambrell & Fritz, 2012), interconnectedness (Trimble, 2020), shared interpretations (Jimenez-Luque, 2021), shared informal responsibility (Hart, 2006), bottom-up leadership (Jimenez-Luque, 2020) and the importance of spirituality (Blume et al., 2020) seem to align well with values found in collectivistic countries. Therefore, leaders who adopt practices based on such values would seem likely to be received well, respected more, and be more effective than if they were to use WEIRD-based leadership values.
In individualistic cultures, qualities like youth and possessing energy and dynamic personalities are often valued in leaders. On the other hand, traditional and modern American Indian culture values leaders who are wise from experience, which often comes with age (Hart, 2006; Marshall [Brulé Lakota, Sicangu Oyate], 2009). This value would likely coincide well in more collectivistic countries where there is a tendency to respect and value elders and their wisdom.
According to former Cherokee Nation Chief, Chad “Corntassel” Smith [Aniyunwiya] (2013), leadership involves confidence tempered by humility. He says that these two are closely intertwined in Aniyunwiya (Cherokee) philosophy. Speaking of humility, American Indian leaders traditionally did not self-nominate. Rather, their leadership skills were recognized to fit community needs and then encouraged by the people who chose to follow them (Marshall, 2009; Trimble, 2020). On the other hand, if the leaders were not doing a good job, the people would choose not to follow them anymore. A recent study found a similar theme of being chosen for rather than choosing leadership among modern tribal leaders (Hart, 2006).
Humble leadership was also identified in a recent study of American Indian leadership values (Boerner, 2013). Such leadership practices based on cultural humility might work well in collectivist cultures where people tend to be humble and not boast about their accomplishments. Indeed, American Indian culture discourages self-promotion (Bryant, 1996). This is in contrast to the self-aggrandizing that is often necessary in individualistic cultures in order to be promoted to leadership positions.
Smith’s (2013) leadership style of understanding the historical context that has led up to the present moment could be applied when a leader first enters a new collectivist cultural setting. Trimble (2020) also appears to support such a looking back to look forward approach. Becoming more knowledgeable, both before and while working abroad, about the culture(s) one works with can pay off in improved relationships that can translate into greater success. To increase knowledge and multicultural competence, leaders can first go to the leadership literature available for that particular culture.
For example, having worked in Thailand for the past five years, I found books like Working With the Thais: A Guide to Managing in Thailand (Holmes & Tangtongtavy, 2003) and The Way Thais Lead: Face as Social Capital (Persons, 2016) invaluable. The former book explores greng jai, a complicated cultural concept involved in developing and maintaining relationships. Greng jai involves being polite, non-aggressive/non-conflictual, respectful, understanding power and status levels, and being considerate to others.
The latter book discusses the importance of the various aspects of face and the concept of losing or saving face that is interwoven into Thai society and is crucial for effective leadership in this context. This author contends that understanding and leveraging knowledge of face is part of an Indigenous leadership style used in this culture that can lend itself to improved relationships and positive outcomes for both leaders and followers. While face and greng jai have never been noted in the American Indian literature, there seem to be parallel cultural values among many Indigenous tribes.
After exploring the literature, new leaders in international collectivist contexts could humbly observe, ask questions, build relationships, and assess the current situation while taking into account the historical context. Leaders can ensure that everyone’s voices in the organization are “heard, valued, and considered” (Trimble, 2020, p. S102) through deep listening without preconceived assumptions (Hart, 2006) and consensus achieved prior to decisions (Blume et al., 2020). As oral tradition might hold more importance over modern written word for American Indian leadership (Hart, 2006), verbal sharing could be emphasized.
Lakota historical leader Crazy Horse’s first three leadership principles likely also apply to this learning stage: “know yourself; know your friends; know the enemy” (Marshall, 2009). Hart (2006) furthers this by quoting a tribal leader in his study: “knowing your community, knowing your people, knowing the visions, and knowing the culture" (Quotes and Stories…, para. 2). These are bases for leadership. From there, Smith (2013) suggests that leaders can then build on their collective vision for the future, which also coincides with Crazy Horse’s final principal, “take the lead” (Marshall, 2009).
Westernized leadership tends to promote the goals of the leader’s organization over societal needs (Blume et al., 2020). In contrast, according to American Indian tradition, all current and future actions should take into consideration not just how they will affect the immediate future but also the effects for the next seven generations to come. As such, Indigenous leadership is fair, moral, just, equal (Marshall, 2009), and promotes interdependence and collaboration “to advance planetary wellbeing” (Blume et al., 2020, para. 4) and “the public good” (Jimenez-Luque, 2020, p. 76). Therefore, from an American Indian perspective, leadership’s main goal should benefit the greater good and all rather than a select few powerful people by, “creating a supportive environment where people can thrive, grow, and live in peace with one another… and thereby provide sustainability for future generations by creating communities of reciprocal care and shared responsibility” (Trimble, 2020, p. S101).
Taking these American Indian leadership philosophies into consideration, transformational empowering leaders can develop long-term visions that align well with the cultural context that they work in and that can have positive future outcomes. Such leadership can be empowering, decolonizing, instill hope, and evoke “collective agency” and social change (Jimenez-Luque, 2021). Hence, learning from American Indian leadership values and adapting them in international collectivist contexts is likely to have positive effects in the settings where they are applied and even more generally in society.
End Note
1. It has been recommended by Alfred (2009) [Kanienkehake] to add indigenous authors’ tribes in-text as a small step towards decolonization.
Scroll Below for References
Epilogue: Response to American Indian Leadership Might Benefit Global Leaders Working in Collectivist Contexts
by Antonio Jimenez-Luque, Gayle Skawen:nio Morse, and Joseph E. Trimble
Mainstream theories and approaches of leadership are leader-centered and hierarchical. The leader at the top normally accumulates pond the followers are viewed as passive actors without agency. These dominant perspectives of leadership come primarily from the United States, where individualism, competition, and masculinity are valued and exported worldwide as the right way of practicing leadership in organizations. Additionally, these leader-centered and hierarchical theories have the power to be taught in schools of leadership as the right ways of being involved in processes of leadership. Thus, other ways of leading and following are made invisible, and individualistic approaches are imposed in countries and societies where the understanding of the world and the phenomenon of leadership is more collective.
In this column, Dr. Amoneeta Beckstein proposes a different leadership style for global leaders working in collectivist contexts. The author suggests learning from American Indian perspectives of leadership should be implemented in collectivist societies since American Indian styles of leadership are more relational and collectivist than dominant Western models.
Although it is not possible to overgeneralize when it comes to American Indian leadership — as there are many different tribes and each of them have their particular ontologies, epistemologies, and ways of understanding leadership — collectively, American Indian leadership represents a more interconnected, relational, and collaborative approach based on the spirituality that connects human beings, nature, and the universe. Conversely, Western leadership promotes the goals of the leader’s organization over societal needs (Blume et al., 2020) rather than seeking for the greater good and creating a supportive environment where people can thrive, grow, and live in peace with one another while valuing past and future generations (Trimble, 2020).
Dr. Amoneeta Beckstein argues in this column that “Taking these American Indian leadership philosophies into consideration, transformational empowering leaders can develop long-term visions that align well with the cultural context that they work in and that can have positive future outcomes.” These leadership styles will be better suited for collectivist contexts and societies. Additionally, American Indian views of leadership will contribute to unfold collective agency that will be critical for decolonial processes of social change (Jimenez-Luque, 2021). In essence, learning from American Indian leadership perspectives can be more appropriate in international collectivist contexts rather than implementing mainstream leadership views. Thus, combining American Indian leadership with Indigenous perspectives from other parts of the world will result in an enriching dialogue around the phenomenon of leadership to work together to build a better world.
Given our interests in the timely topic, it is important to us to point to the work of Tracy Becker (1997). Tracy Becker compared the typical American Indian leaders with the typical leadership style in U.S. governance. She concluded that, for American Indians in general, leaders were chosen for their knowledge, experience, and contributions, and remained in the position for as long as the tribe needed them; they had no power over others, respected the strong value of tribal customs and traditions, and thus strived to uphold and maintain them. Consensus guided decision-making processes; the maintenance of relationships was essential in conflict resolution matters. Spirituality was at the center of all activities and matters of importance and significance to the tribe. She contrasted these descriptors with the typical form of leadership styles in the U.S. government. Following the order of points made previously, the list includes the following: “leadership is a position; leaders seek leadership positions either through elections or employment; they can create laws and have them enforced. The rights of the individual are salient in most relationships; the majority of the group, community, or populace decides an outcome; judicial matters are governed by restitutions; and reason not ‘spirituality’ influences most decisions and deliberations” (Becker, 1997, p. 8).
Finally, we maintain that leadership style is a focus on “what leaders do” compared with leader identity, which is a focus on “who leaders are.” Different leadership styles have become more salient and favored in response to changing environmental trends and social forces, such as WWII and the rise of the digital age. These styles often are laden with value judgments and are unresponsive to differences because of dimensions of diversity. In examining leadership styles, we need an emphasis on authentic leadership styles that allow for an attention to difference rather than narrow definitions of leadership style. Expanding perspectives of leadership within a global and diverse society also paves the way for new paradigms of leadership style responsive to dimensions of diversity. Attending to culturally unique value dimensions of leadership can help leaders lead change and avoid value judgment, which marginalizes leadership styles that differ from the dominant leader prototype. It is a dynamic process between leader, follower, and context; its measurement can be multidimensional and bidirectional, challenging us to broaden our perspective of effective leadership styles.
References Epilogue
Becker, T. (1997). Traditional American Indian leadership: A comparison with U.S. governance. A report prepared for the American Indian Research and Policy Institute. St. Paul, MN.
Jimenez-Luque, A. (2021). Reframing the past to legitimate the future: Building collective agency for social change through a process of decolonizing memory. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715021999892
Trimble, J.E. (2020). “Being grounded in the ancestors and looking forward...”—Blending culturally competent research with indigenous leadership styles. Prevention Science, 21, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01063-9
References Article
Alfred, G. R. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Appelbaum, S.H. & Shapiro, B., (1998). The management of multicultural group conflict. Team Performance Management, 4(5), 211-234.
Arredondo, P., & Toporek, R. (2004). Multicultural counseling competencies = ethical practice. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.26.1.hw2enjqve2p2tj6q
Bahr, H. M., Day, R. C., & Chadwick, B. A. (1972). Native Americans today: Sociological perspectives. Harper & Row.
Blume, A., Trimble, J.E. & Chin, JL. (2020). An Indigenous American vision of leadership. Global & Culturally Diverse Leadership in the 21st Century. Retrieved from https://intersections.ilamembers.org/member-benefit-access/interface/global-and-culturally-diverse-leadership/2020-indigenous-american-vision-of-leadership
Boerner, C.L. (2013). The organizational culture and leadership values that impact Native American water utility organizations. Theses and Dissertations, 362. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/362
Bryant, M.T. (1996). Contrasting American and Native American views of leadership. Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration: Louisville, KY. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED402691.pdf
Gambrell, K.M. & Fritz, S.M. (2012). Healers and helpers, unifying the people: A qualitative study of Lakota leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3). 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812442749
Hart, J.G. (2006). Exploring tribal leadership: Understanding and working with tribal people. Journal of Extension, 44(4). Retrieved from https://archives.joe.org/joe/2006august/a3.php
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1601785
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 42-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3
Holmes, H. C., Tangtongtavy, S., & Tomizawa, R. (2003). Working with the Thais: A guide to managing in Thailand. White Lotus.
Jimenez-Luque, A. (2020). Exercising public leadership from below: An empirical research on a Native American health clinic organization. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 74 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21687
Jimenez-Luque, A. (2021). Reframing the past to legitimate the future: Building collective agency for social change through a process of decolonizing memory. Leadership, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715021999892
Jogulu, U.D (2010). Culturally-linked leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(8), 705-719.
Kose, M. A., Lakatos, C., Ohnsorge, F., & Stocker, M. (2017). The global role of the U.S. economy: Linkages, policies and spillovers. Working Paper 1706, Koç University-TÜSİAD Economic Research Forum (ERF), Istanbul. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/166746/1/884608719.pdf
Kulkarni, S. P., Hudson, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Marchev, A., Georgieva-Kondakova, P., & Gorskov, V. (2010). Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A comparative study of five cultures. Verslo Ir Teisės Aktualijos, 5, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.5200/1822-9530.2010.03
Marshall, J. (2009). The power of four: Leadership lessons of Crazy Horse. Sterling.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.993
Persons, L. S. (2016). The way Thais lead: Face as social capital. Silkworm Books.
Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(3), 238-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666317
Sagy, S., Orr, E., Bar-on, D., & Awwad, E. (2001). Individualism and collectivism in two conflicted societies. Youth & Society, 33(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x01033001001
Smith, C. (2013). Leadership lessons from the Cherokee Nation. McGraw-Hill.
Trafimow, D., & Smith, M. D. (1998). An extension of the "two-baskets" theory to Native Americans. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6), 1015-1019.
Trimble, J.E. (2020). “Being grounded in the ancestors and looking forward...”—Blending culturally competent research with indigenous leadership styles. Prevention Science, 21, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01063-9
Trimble, J.E., & Chin, J.L. (2019). Exploring culturally diverse leadership styles: A mindset and multicultural journey. Social Behavior Research and Practice Open Journal, 4(1): e1-e2. https://doi.org/10.17140/SBRPOJ-4-e005