Context

How does context shape what effective leadership looks like?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 16, 2026

Introduction

Today’s session

• Warm-up 15 min
• Cross-cultural leadership 30 min
• Leading across boundaries 20 min
• Break
• Ethical & sustainable leadership 25 min
• DT synthesis & latticework integration 25 min
• Reflection & closing 10 min

Learning objectives

After completing this unit, you will be able to:

1. Explain how cultural dimensions (Hofstede, GLOBE) shape leadership effectiveness across contexts.
2. Compare authentic, servant, and sustainable leadership as ethical frameworks.
3. Integrate all course concepts to diagnose a digital transformation challenge.
4. Reflect on your personal latticework and identify areas for continued development.

Warm-up

Cultural reflection check-in

Insights from your cultural reflection homework.

Write down one experience where cultural differences affected teamwork or leadership.

03:00

Students write in silence — no talking. The silence models the discomfort of cross-cultural communication where verbal cues are absent, setting the theme for the session.

Pair share

Exchange your card with your neighbor. Read silently, then write a response on the back.

04:00

Write a question, a connection to your own experience, or something that surprises you.

Students write a response on the back of their partner’s card: a question, a connection to their own experience, or a surprise (2 min). Then they read each other’s responses silently (1 min). The entire exchange happens in writing — no talking.

This format slows down the conversation, forces careful reading, and models the experience of written-first communication common in cross-cultural virtual teams. Walk around and observe — some pairs will want to talk. Gently redirect them to write.

Plenary debrief

What cultural assumptions about teamwork or leadership did you discover? Were any surprising?

05:00

Ask: “What was it like to communicate only in writing? What did you notice that you might have missed in a verbal exchange?” (2 min). Then: “What cultural assumptions about leadership did you discover through the cards?” (3 min).

“The silent dialogue forced you to slow down, read carefully, and respond thoughtfully — exactly the skills cross-cultural leadership demands. Verbal fluency can mask cultural misunderstandings; writing makes them visible.”

Preview: “Today we explore how culture shapes leadership — what works in one context may fail in another.”

Connect: “Our latticework of mental models is itself culturally shaped. The models we’ve studied were largely developed in Western contexts. Today we examine that assumption.”

Revisiting the territory

The digital transformation context

In the foundation unit, we described the context of leadership in the digital age: VUCA, digital transformation, and the challenges leaders face.
You now have seven units of tools. How would you lead through digital transformation?

Digital transformation is not a technology problem.
It is an adaptive challenge that requires behavioral complexity, engaging leadership, effective teams, political navigation, and stakeholder management.

Map vs. territory — revisited

In Unit 1, we introduced Korzybski’s principle: the map is not the territory.

Culture is perhaps the ultimate example: our cultural mental models shape everything we see, yet we are often unaware of them. They are the invisible maps through which we interpret all leadership situations.

What works in one cultural context may fail—or even offend—in another. Effective leadership requires recognizing which of our assumptions are culturally contingent.

Mini-lecture (2 min).

Frame: what works in one cultural context may fail — or even offend — in another. Effective leadership requires recognizing which assumptions are culturally contingent. This is the “map vs. territory” principle applied to culture.

Cross-cultural leadership

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

The cultural dimensions framework (Hofstede, 1980) identifies six dimensions along which national cultures vary. Each dimension is a mental model for understanding cultural differences:

Power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity,
long-term vs. short-term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint¹

Each dimension is a range of values, and there is a lot of variation in any culture. These are tendencies, not absolutes.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

• Power distance: the degree to which less powerful members accept unequal power distribution. High: Malaysia, Philippines. Low: Austria, Denmark.
• Individualism vs. collectivism: the degree to which people are integrated into groups. Individualist: USA, UK. Collectivist: China, Japan.
• Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which members feel uncomfortable with ambiguity. High: Greece, Japan. Low: Singapore, Denmark.
• Masculinity vs. femininity: the degree to which gender roles are distinct. Masculine cultures (Japan, Hungary) value competitiveness, assertiveness, and material success. Feminine cultures (Sweden, Norway) value cooperation, caring, and quality of life.
• Long-term vs. short-term orientation: the degree to which a society maintains links with its past while dealing with present and future challenges. Long-term: China, Japan. Short-term: USA, UK.
• Indulgence vs. restraint: the degree to which a society allows relatively free gratification of basic human desires. The dimension was added in 2021 (Hofstede et al., 2010). Indulgent: Mexico, Nigeria. Restrained: Russia, China.

For leaders, the practical value is not memorizing country scores but developing awareness that cultural differences exist and curiosity to discover how they manifest. As Hofstede (1980) warned: “Culture is not a characteristic of individuals; it encompasses a number of people who were conditioned by the same education and life experience.”

The GLOBE study

The GLOBE study (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) (House et al., 2004) extended Hofstede’s work by studying leadership specifically across 62 cultures.

Key finding: six culturally endorsed leadership dimensions:

• Charismatic/value-based: visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing universally valued
• Team-oriented: collaborative, team-integrating, diplomatic universally valued
• Participative: involving others in decision-making culturally contingent
• Humane-oriented: modest, compassionate, generous culturally contingent
• Autonomous: independent, self-reliant culturally contingent
• Self-protective: status-conscious, face-saving, procedural culturally contingent

Mini-lecture (5 min).

GLOBE’s key contribution: some leadership aspects are universal, others are culturally contingent.

Universal: Charismatic and team-oriented leadership are valued across virtually all cultures. Vision, integrity, and team-building are foundational regardless of context.

Culturally contingent: Participative leadership is highly valued in Western, individualist cultures but less so in high power-distance cultures. Autonomous leadership is valued in some cultures (Germanic Europe) but seen negatively in others (Latin America).

Practical implication: leaders working across cultures need to distinguish their universal behaviors (which they can rely on) from their culturally contingent behaviors (which they need to adapt). This is behavioral complexity (Unit 3) applied to culture.

Cultural intelligence

Cultural intelligence (CQ) is the capability to function effectively across cultural contexts.

The Four-Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence identifies four components of CQ (Ang et al., 2007):

• CQ Drive: motivation to learn about and engage with other cultures
• CQ Knowledge: understanding of cultural norms, practices, and conventions
• CQ Strategy: ability to plan for and make sense of culturally diverse encounters
• CQ Action: ability to adapt behavior appropriately in cross-cultural situations

Like emotional intelligence, cultural intelligence is developable: it improves with deliberate exposure, reflection, and practice.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

CQ is particularly relevant for digital leaders because digital transformation often spans cultural boundaries: global teams, international stakeholders, cross-cultural customer bases.

CQ builds on course concepts: self-awareness (Unit 2) is the foundation for recognizing cultural biases. Behavioral complexity (Unit 3) is required to flex leadership style. Stakeholder empathy (Unit 7) must include cultural empathy.

Cross-cultural leadership exercise

How would leadership approach differ across cultures?

Scenario: You are leading a global AI-chatbot product team with members from Germany, Japan, Brazil, and the USA. You need to make a critical decision about the product roadmap. Each cultural context has different expectations about decision-making, communication, and hierarchy.

• Let’s assign each cultural role to a student.
• They then simulate a product roadmap meeting where each person stays in character.

07:00

Culture simulation game (14 min total: 10 min simulation, 4 min debrief).

Preparation (before class): Create 4 sets of “cultural norm” cards:

• German cards: “You expect a structured agenda. Decisions need data. Speak directly and concisely.”
• Japanese cards: “Build consensus before the meeting. Avoid public disagreement. Silence means thinking, not agreement.”
• Brazilian cards: “Relationships come first. Small talk matters. Hierarchy is respected but warmth is expected.”
• American cards: “Speak up immediately. The best idea wins. Decisions should be fast and individual.”

After 7 minutes, freeze: “How did it feel? Where did friction arise?”

Debrief (4 min):

• Which cultural dimensions caused the most friction?
• Expected: power distance × decision-making speed, collectivism × individual accountability.

Connect to behavioral complexity (Unit 3): the leader must hold multiple cultural frames simultaneously.

Cross-boundary leadership

Cross-functional collaboration

In the digital age, cross-functional collaboration is the norm, not the exception Most leaders must influence across hierarchies, functions, and geographies simultaneously.

Key challenges:

• Competing loyalties: team members report to multiple managers with potentially conflicting priorities (Sy & D’Annunzio, 2005)
• Information asymmetry: different functions have different data, perspectives, and jargon (Carlile, 2002)
• Coordination costs: every boundary crossed adds communication overhead

Cross-boundary leadership is where several units’ concepts converge:

• Lateral leadership (Unit 6) — influencing without formal authority
• Stakeholder management (Unit 7) — every function is a stakeholder group
• Cultural intelligence (this unit) — functional cultures can be as different as national cultures
• Engaging leadership (Unit 4) — maintaining motivation across boundaries

The leader who navigates these boundaries effectively creates the most value in complex organizations.

Geographically distributed teams

Building on Unit 5’s treatment of virtual teams, the cultural dimension adds a layer of complexity:

• Communication style differences: direct (Germanic, Anglo) vs. indirect (Asian, Latin American) communication norms create misunderstandings
• Time orientation: monochronic (one thing at a time, punctuality) vs. polychronic (flexible time, relationships first) cultures clash in scheduling and deadlines
• Decision-making norms: consensus-driven (Japanese nemawashi) vs. top-down (many hierarchical cultures) vs. debate-driven (Dutch poldermodel) approaches to decisions

The adaptive leader’s task: create shared norms that respect cultural differences while enabling effective collaboration.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

This extends the virtual team practices from Unit 5: structured communication rhythms, explicit norms, and intentional relationship building are even more critical when cultural differences add another layer of complexity.

Ask: “What explicit norms would you establish for a culturally diverse virtual team?” Collect 2–3 responses briefly.

Ethical leadership

Why integrity matters

Trust is the foundation of leadership, built on the observer’s perception of the leader’s integrity: the belief that the leader adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995).

When leaders do not act with integrity, the damage extends far beyond the immediate situation:

• Follower commitment erodes (engaging leadership, depends on trust)
• Psychological safety collapses (if the leader can’t be trusted, no one feels safe)
• Social capital is destroyed (the relational dimension depends on trust and norms)
• Organizational legitimacy is undermined (stakeholder salience shifts as legitimacy is questioned)

Authentic leadership

Authentic leadership theory emphasizes the leader’s genuine self as the foundation for effective and ethical influence (Walumbwa et al., 2008):

• Self-Awareness: It’s not just “knowing yourself”; it’s knowing how your behavior affects others. It’s the “mirror” factor. Walumbwa et al. argue this is the prerequisite for the other three.
• Relational Transparency: This is about self-disclosure. It builds trust because it reduces the “hidden agenda” fear in followers. However, it’s not “oversharing”—it’s sharing the relevant truth to build a bridge.
• Balanced Processing: This is essentially intellectual honesty. It means the leader actively seeks out “the dissenting voice” (see also psychological safety)
• Internalized Moral Perspective: This is the “Compass.” It’s the opposite of being a “chameleon” leader who changes their values to please whichever stakeholder is in the room.

Authentic leadership connects strongly to the “truth to the teller” principle in storytelling: a leader who does not know themselves cannot be authentic, and a storyteller who is not genuine cannot inspire lasting trust.

Research shows that authentic leadership is positively associated with follower trust, engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior (Gardner et al., 2011). Followers are remarkably perceptive at detecting inauthenticity — and when they do, the leader’s influence evaporates.

Servant leadership

Greenleaf (1977) proposed that the best leaders are those who serve first:

The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead (Greenleaf, 1977).

Core practices of servant leadership:

• Prioritizing followers’ growth: the leader’s primary concern is developing the people they lead
• Stewardship: the leader holds the organization in trust for a broader community, not for personal gain
• Building community: the leader fosters genuine connection and shared purpose among followers

Servant leadership inverts the traditional power hierarchy: instead of followers serving the leader’s vision, the leader serves the followers’ development. This may sound idealistic, but research shows that servant leadership is associated with stronger team performance, higher trust, and greater organizational citizenship behavior.

Servant leadership connects to SDT: by prioritizing follower growth, servant leaders naturally satisfy autonomy (empowerment), competence (development), and relatedness (community) needs. It also connects to the “giving the work back” principle of adaptive leadership: servant leaders trust their followers to solve problems, creating the conditions for adaptive work.

Sustainable leadership

Sustainable leadership extends the leader’s responsibility beyond the organization to its long-term impact on society and the environment (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011).

Key principles:

• Long-term organizational health over short-term results — resisting the pressure to sacrifice future capacity for current performance
• Ecological and social responsibility — recognizing that organizations operate within broader systems and have obligations to those systems
• Intergenerational thinking — making decisions that preserve options and resources for future leaders and stakeholders

Sustainable leadership connects to systems thinking: organizations are embedded in broader social and ecological systems, and their actions have second- and third-order consequences. A leader who optimizes for short-term shareholder value at the expense of environmental sustainability or employee wellbeing may be creating challenges that future leaders will have to address.

Ethical dilemma exercise

What would you do?
What principles guide your decision?

Make group of two and choose one dilemma to discuss:

1. The data dilemma: Your AI system is more profitable using customer data in ways that technically comply with regulations but most customers would object to.
2. The restructuring: You must cut 20% of your workforce. Do it quickly (efficient but brutal) or gradually (humane but creates months of uncertainty)?

Have two rounds à 3 minutes: In round #1, A argues for the most pragmatic/profitable option, B argues for the most ethical/principled option. Each student has 90 seconds. For round #2 switch roles. Lastly, seek a genuine synthesis.

08:00

Structured academic controversy — SAC (12 min total).

The SAC format forces students to take seriously a position they initially opposed — building the cognitive complexity that ethical leadership demands. No “right” answers — the value is in the reasoning process.

DT synopsis

DT as adaptive challenge

Return to adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994): Digital transformation is all about adapting to change. There is no set way to do this, and it requires a change in behavior at all levels.

Consider a CIO leading an AI-transformation project in a mid-sized manufacturing company.

What does she need?

Exercise

Apply your latticework to a DT challenge.

Scenario: You are a CIO leading an AI-transformation project in a German mid-sized manufacturing company with global operations.

Make groups of 3-4 and …

1. diagnose the leadership challenges using at least 4 course frameworks and
2. propose your first 90 days: what do you do first, second, third?

10:00

This synthesis section maps the entire course onto a single challenge. The CIO needs:

• Self-awareness: understanding her own biases, strengths, and blind spots. Is she overconfident in the technical solution? Does she underestimate the human dimension?
• Behavioral complexity: handling paradoxes: maintaining operational stability while driving transformational change. Moving across CVF quadrants as the situation demands.
• Engaging leadership: motivating resistant teams. Using SDT principles: providing autonomy (letting teams choose implementation approaches), supporting competence (training and development), building relatedness (cross-functional collaboration).
• Team building: creating effective cross-functional squads. Building psychological safety so engineers and business users can be candid about challenges. Managing the team development process in newly formed groups.
• Political navigation: handling resource conflicts between departments. Building power through expertise and track record. Managing conflict between IT and operations.
• Stakeholder management: engaging the board (inform/consult), the vendor ecosystem (collaborate), the labor union (involve), and end users (involve/collaborate). Building coalitions for change.
• Cultural intelligence: adapting the change approach for global rollout. Recognizing that resistance may be culturally coded differently across locations.
• Storytelling: communicating the vision in ways that inspire different audiences. Different stories for the board, the engineering team, and the shop floor.

This is the latticework in action: no single model is sufficient for a challenge of this complexity. The leader needs all of them — and the judgment to know which to apply when.

Latticework integration

Your latticework — a review

Over eight units, you have built a diverse toolkit of mental models:

Unit	Key mental models
1. Foundations	First principles, inversion, systems thinking, map vs. territory
2. Leader	Trait paradoxes, cognitive biases in self-perception, nature–nurture
3. Adaptive behavior	CVF, technical vs. adaptive problems, both/and thinking
4. Motivation	Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, path-goal contingency, feedback loops
5. Team	Group development stages, psychological safety, complex adaptive systems
6. Conflict & Power	Conflict styles, power as relational, game theory
7. Stakeholder	Stakeholder salience, engagement spectrum, coalition logic
8. Context	Cultural dimensions, ethical frameworks, sustainable systems thinking

Table 1: Summary of latticework

Plenary review (3 min).

Ask: “Which 3–5 models do you find most useful for your own leadership context?” Let 2–3 students respond.

The map is still not the territory

Revisit Parrish’s map vs. territory:

Our latticework is still a map. Reality is always richer, messier, and more surprising than any framework can capture.

The value of the latticework is not that it gives you all the answers — but that it gives you better questions and more options when facing complex leadership challenges.

Latticework update

Which new models have you added to your latticework?

• Cultural dimensions as leadership context (Hofstede, GLOBE)
• Ethical frameworks (authentic, servant, sustainable leadership)
• Cultural intelligence as a developable capability

Closing quote

The map is still not the territory — but your latticework gives you better questions and more options when facing complex leadership challenges.

Q&A

Open the floor for remaining questions.

Homework

Think of a leadership story — a moment where someone’s communication made a real difference:

• What made the story compelling?
• How did it make you feel?
• Can you identify elements of ethos, pathos, and logos?

Literature

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and job performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571111128766

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Sy, T., & D’Annunzio, L. S. (2005). Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations: Top-level and mid-level managers’ perspectives. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20042

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

Footnotes

1. Indulgence vs. restraint was added in 2021 (Hofstede et al., 2010)