在文獻資料中，領導力有不同的定義方式。在其眾多定義中，三個概念最為主要。第一種，領導力被定義為團隊歷程的核心，在其中，小組變化和活動以領袖為中心(Northouse Northhouse,2010)。在此概念中，領導力被視為一種社會現象(Yan and Hunt, 2005)。因此，在以個體或群體為單位成為整個過程的中心或核心部分，領導力也隨之生成。團隊之間的團結和合作，極大程度上依靠人或人群的中心——領袖(Wren et al., 2004)。
 
第二種，領導力也可從個性的角度來定義。基于這一概念化，領導力被視為一組特征或特點，憑借個人能力來完成任務(Northouse Northhouse,2010)。領導力的這一觀點是單方面的，可能這些是區分領導者和下屬的特征。然而，一些性格特征，比如尊重、敢為性和自身優勢可能不被認為是領導能力的特征(Wren et al., 2004)。
 
最后一種，一些專家定義領導力為領導人為實現目標或改變的一種行為。總之，領導力的定義包含以下元素：過程、影響、分組和共同的目標(Northouse Northhouse,2010)。在此概念中，領導力就是以領導者的角色和他們的行為為中心，如構建員工工作關系和執行有利于整個集團的其他任務(Wren et al., 2004)。
 
Leadership as defined in the literature in various ways. Within its numerous definitions, three concepts emerge constantly. First, leadership is defined as a focus of a group process wherein the leader is the focus group change and activity (Northouse and Northhouse, 2010). In this conceptualization, leadership is viewed as a social phenomenon (Yan and Hunt, 2005). Leadership, hence, occurs when an individual or group becomes the center or nucleus of the process control. Cooperation, polarization and unity of the group is greatly dependent on the person or people in the center- the leader or leaders (Wren et al., 2004).
 
Second, leadership is also defined as a personality perspective. Based on this conceptualization, leadership is viewed as a set of traits or characteristics that makes an individual capable to accomplish tasks (Northouse and Northhouse, 2010). This view of leadership is one way and may imply that these traits simply differentiate the leader from its followers. However, some personality traits such as esteem, social boldness and dominance per se may not be considered leadership in its genuine form (Wren et al., 2004).
 
Lastly, some experts define leadership as an act or behavior of the leaders in order to achieve the goal or change in the group. In summary, leadership definition involves the following elements: process, influence, grouping, and common goals (Northouse and Northhouse, 2010). In this concept, leadership is centered on the roles of the leader and his acts such as structuring work relations and other tasks and that benefit to the entire group (Wren et al., 2004).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
With these concepts, leadership may then be defined as the process of utilizing personality traits and execution of favorable behavior towards the achievement of common goal within a group.
 
領導力的元素—The Elements of Leadership
 
The observance of leadership is composed of interrelated elements. Each of which will be described in this section.
 
Collaboration. Collaboration is working together towards the achievement of common goal; otherwise known as teamwork. Some of the core skills that may improve collaboration within a group include: problem solving and task execution, knowledge sharing, and decentralized decision making (Mears, 2009). In order to build an environment that fosters collaboration, trusting relationship must first be set up. The relationship between the leaders and the followers should be rooted on honesty, respect, consistency and openness (Northouse and Northhouse, 2010).
 
Motivation. Motivation is also an essential element of leadership. This holds true for the leader and the followers as well. The leader should be motivated but he must also motivate his constituents. In other words, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is equally important to gain effective leadership. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, motivation from the leader may be needed for his followers to achieve self-actualization (Clegg et al., 2005). In the field of psychology, on the other hand, motivation may be positive or negative. Positive motivation includes rewards or recognition by the followers to their leader and vice versa. On the other hand, negative motivation involves punishment or fines if responsibilities of the leader or the team members are not achieved.
 
Planning. In the recent years, the demand for a more advanced leadership gave birth to strategic leadership. In this type of leadership, an important element is strategic planning. Strategic planning is composed of calculated responses to the external and internal environment in order to achieve long-term success for the group. It is a committed participatory process between the leaders and the followers with the clear vision of their goals and objectives and the achievement of these. The strategic plan is literally a written document of this process to guide the group towards the course of plan at its various stages (Lusthaus, 2002).
 
Decision-making. It is in the decision making element of leadership wherein the influence of the leader over its followers is taken into consideration. Depending on the levels of influence of the leader over its followers, the decision making procedures of the group is likely to follow the decision of the leader or not (Heller, 992). Like strategic planning, effective leadership also implements participation in the decision-making of the group (Lusthaus, 2002).
 
Communication. Communication as an element of leadership is also a prelude to the success or failure of the group. Leadership communication is composed of the verbal and non-verbal messages from the leader directed towards the stakeholders. These messages influence the vision, mission and transformation aspects of the group. The main focus of leadership communication is to build a trusting relationship between the leader and the followers. Some of the favorable traits of leadership communication include: significance, values consistency, and cadence. Leadership communication imparts significant or relevant messages reflecting the present and future of the group. These messages also reflect the values: vision, mission and culture of the group. Communication must also be consistent with the stated values and behavior of the leader with all of the group members and the group as a whole. Lastly, the communication should be regularly and frequently (Baldoni, 2003).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Conflict-resolution. Conflict, as described in the fields of economics and psychology, becomes the order of any human or animal society because of competition for resources and disagreements in action. While conflict is inevitable, it becomes problematic if not properly dealt with. Hence, in cases of conflict within the group or its environment, the leader should have conflict resolution or negotiation skills. With this, the leader should have viable interpersonal communication skills so as the deal and negotiate with both of the conflicting parties (DuBrin, 2010).
 
Appraisal. Appraisal is also needed in leadership in order to motivate group members and promote growth within the goal. The leader uses appropriate appraisal techniques such as two-way communication and appraisal interview especially in performance appraisal. In performance appraisal, individual group members should be evaluated with significant consideration of their unique needs and goals (Marquis et al., 2009).
 
Staff Development. Lastly, staff development is one of the responsibilities of the leader. In order to implement staff development the leader should translate the group's goals and vision into concrete and measurable concepts that the group members could clearly understand and agree with. Staff development should also apply to the leader. Leadership assessment and leadership skills gap should be identified (Max and Bacal, 2004).
 
These elements are interrelated in every aspect of leadership. Collaboration, decision making and staff development may interplay in strategic planning. Likewise, communication is very much needed in conflict resolution. Other leadership elements and skills may also play roles in the achievement of effective leadership. Moreover, these elements are used in various means and degrees depending on different types of leadership.
 
領導力風格—Leadership Styles
 
The combination of how the leader executes, with consistent attitudes and behaviors, the elements of leadership mentioned in the preceding section. Hence, leadership styles are rooted on the attitudes and behavior of the leader. In literature, leadership styles are broadly classified as participative and authoritative leadership.
 
參與型領導力—Participative Leadership
The main characteristic of participative leadership is sharing in terms of decision-making with the group members. This type of leadership can then be divided into three subtypes namely: consultative, consensus and democratic leadership. Consultative leadership communicates and negotiates with the group members before making a decision. However, the decision still remains within the jurisdiction of the leader. On the other hand, consensus leadership goes through group discussions until all the stakeholders agree or show intention to support the decision. Lastly, democratic leadership gives the decision making power to the group members by casting votes (DuBrin, 2010).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
In other words, participative style of leadership confers to the concept of teamwork. The locus of control and power is decentralized within the group members. This fosters independence and empowerment in their respective tasks for the group members. This is also tantamount to the leader and the members sharing leadership. Hence, this requires much more collaboration, communication, and conflict-resolution. Some researches show that high performance is observed with the use of participative leadership style (DuBrin, 2010). The leadership skills needed include empathy, communication and respect (Myran, 2003). Likewise, participative leadership style also caters to higher membership satisfaction (Rothwell, 2007).
 
權威性領導力—Authoritative Leadership
In contrast to the previous, leadership style, authoritative leadership retains to locus of control and authority to the leader only. All the final decision making processes of the group is also centered to the leader. The leader's preference is to demand for the members' strict compliance to previously set policies and even informal rules. Attributes often labeled to authoritative leaders include self-confidence and empathy. The impact on the group climate may be positive or negative. Either way, the effect will be strong and powerful (Myran, 2003). Researches show that low performing teams have authoritative leadership style in the group (DuBrin, 2010).
 
參與型領導力與權威性領導力的對比—Participative Versus Authoritative Leadership Style
However, Rothwell (2007) argued that these leadership styles should not be viewed as opposites or contrasting. A combination of both, depending on the situation and challenge at hand, may be very much useful. With the recognition that there is no single leadership style fit to all situations, other perspectives of leadership were devised. Situational-contingency leadership style suggests that leadership style should be matched with the situation and condition of the group. On the other hand, functional perspective states that leadership style is dependent on how and why the leader is needed by the group. Hence, the responsibilities of the leader are the starting points of the suitable leadership style (Rothwell, 2007).
 
Moreover, in the recent years, cultural dimensions were observed to also influence leadership perception. This leads to the new line of research- leadership in a multi-cultural environment or cross-cultural leadership.
 
跨文化領導力—Cross-Cultural Leadership
There is no universal definition of culture along various social science fields. In the study, Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, culture is defined as the shared motives, values, beliefs, and meanings within members of collectiveness (Chhokar et al., 2008). Cultural differences are products of ways its people work, value of possessions and way of thinking brought about by culture's teachings or cultural symbols. The culture's teachings and possessions are then passed over generations to generations. Apart from this collective observation, cultural differences are also observed at the individual level which pertains to personality versus the social systems of characteristics (Hall, 2006).Furthermore, Connerley (2005) argued that cultural differences, if shall be used in the study of leadership, should be inclusive and broadly defined so that this will become generic and applicable to various leader relationships.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Globalization and international relations are some phenomenon that increases the need for cross cultural leadership. People of different cultures can no longer live to be mutually exclusive to that of other cultures (Samover, Porter and McDaniel, 2007). This connectedness brings about intercultural relationships in all aspects of human life. Immigration has also contributed to the formation of multi-cultural groups in the same or relatively new cultural environment. Hence, this demands for another challenge among leaders: cross-cultural leadership styles, skills and attributes in order to achieve effective cross-cultural leadership. This applies to managerial aspects of leadership in business for globalization or even community formation in the case of immigration.
 
領導力效能的文化維度—Cultural Dimensions of Leadership Effectiveness
 
There are no hard rules on how to measure leadership efficacy. Moreover, cultural differences also contribute to the lack of universal measurements of what an effective leader should be. Leadership effectiveness is perceived through two distinct processes: inference-based and recognition-based perception.
 
Inference-based perception is focused on the functional aspects of leadership to produce good individual and group performance. This process is used to link leadership perceptions to key organizational events. In case of group failure or success, leadership often takes the blame or praise (Yan and Hunt, 2005). This process is further divided into two types: automatic inference and controlled inference. Automatic inference of leadership effectiveness is observed when a causal linkage between leadership and success or failure is automatically perceived. Changes in the group, good or bad are quickly attributed to the leaders. On the other hand, controlled inferential process utilizes a more careful causal analysis between leadership and success or failure (Lord and Maher, 1991).
 
The recognition-based perception involves the use previous knowledge about leadership in a unique context. Recognition-based perception assess leadership efficacy by using knowledge of underlying leadership traits and behaviors that may be obtained through experience, education and other cultural influences. Hence, these ideas of an effective leader differ from culture to culure (Hartog et al., 1999).
 
In various study, there were various cultural dimensions observed. However, in the context of leader effectiveness, five cultural dimensions are perceived to influence at higher levels. These cultural dimensions are discussed one by one in the next section.
 
集體主義或個人主義—Collectivism or Individualism
 
This cultural dimension measures the degree to which an individual's membership level is perceived. This is oftentimes tested both in the fields of cross cultural management and organizational studies. In a collectivist culture, the group interest prevails over the individual. In individualist culture, it is otherwise. The cultural differences based on this dimension may be observed in the following conditions.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
In a collectivist society, group followers can readily accept the leadership conforming to their implicit leadership prototypes. Hence, the chosen leader is likely the one who has the previously set attributes of a good leader (Yan and hunt, 2005). Some of the attributes that differ among cultures include: trustworthiness and honesty, strategic planning, positive thinking, dynamicity, motivation, communication and team building (Rothwell. 2009). Hence, collectivist societies perceive leadership efficacy through recognition-based process. In individualistic societies, extraordinary performance of an individual can make him or her a leader. Hence, leaders are more often put into pressure (Yan and Hunt, 2005). The attributes for a leader in individualist society include high value to individual freedom, self-improvement, status consciousness, and willingness to take risks (Rothwell. 2009).
 
In vertical collectivism, the welfare of the entire organization oftentimes serves as the goal of the leader rather than the welfare of the immediate group. On the other hand, vertical individualism put very high regards on competition, superior performance and winning. Hence, individualist cultures tend to produce more competitive individuals. In horizontal collectivist culture, the welfare of the immediate group is the goal. Hence, followers tend to deviate from the goals of the entire organization. This is also true in the case of horizontal individualism wherein freedom is valued but deviation from group goals is an aberration (Yan and Hunt, 2005)
 
權利差距—Power Distance
 
Power distance is the way with which the culture handles the problem of human inequality particularly as a result of the status quo. Societies with low power distance have minimized value for inequalities between people. Hierarchies do not stand for deeper meanings but only for administrative convenience. Leaders and followers regard each other to have equal rights and representation. On the other hand, high PD societies are characterized by the acknowledgement of inequality and hierarchies. This dimension has a lot of implications in the perception of leadership efficacy.
 
In societies with high power distance and paternalistic mind set, leaders assume authority including all roles such as decision-making, support and protection. In return, the followers treat the leader with care, loyalty, deference and compliance. They evaluate the leader based on the personal treatment to them. In low power distance societies, the leaders are perceived as equal and change in roles is possible. The change on who becomes the leader is based on ability, performance and job requirement.
 
Second, paternalistic culture leaders tend to use force and manipulation of followers' trust and emotion in order to be perceived as effective leaders. Good performance may not be used as a label for effective leadership as hierarchies are already pre-set. Emotions and not logical inference take part in leadership perception. Low power distance leadership is rooted on performance, knowledge, and respect. Hence, attribution mentality is more dominant as personal skill, performance of duty, and abilities play important roles on how leaders are perceived (Yan and Hunt, 2005).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
女性主義與男性主義的對比—Masculinity versus Feminism
 
Masculinity expresses assertion, competitiveness, material success, and big and fast figures. Hence the focus is on material success. Cultures with a high masculinity favor large-scale enterprises; hence fostering economic growth rather than conservation of the environment. School system and work goals encourage high performance. The drawback of focusing too much on material success is the tendency to neglect ethical issues and may also tolerate corruption.
 
On the other hand, cultures with feminine dominancy or lower masculinity have low expectation on those traits. Respect is rather given on the small, weak and slow. Hence, the focus is on quality of life and interpersonal relationship with the weak members of the society. People do not tend to be goal-oriented but rather put more emphasis on nurturing relationship with others. The perception of the followers to their leaders is based on interpersonal behavior and traits.
 
In order to achieve Effective leadership based on this dimension, leaders should be able to understand the leadership style preferred by the followers. This is necessary for the leaders' authority to be respected and better lead followers towards the pre-set and agreed goals. The central attribution for society with masculinity dominance is on superior position and personal achievement, heroism, work centrality and material success and less than personal characteristics. On the other hand, for a more feminine society, less attribution is put on performance and abilities but rather on good interpersonal relationship, group decision making, cooperation and the quality of life. Sweden, Norway and Denmark and Yugoslavia have strong feminine values (Yan and Hunt, 2005 and Daft, 2005).
 
不確定性規避—Uncertainty Avoidance
 
Uncertainty avoidance reflects ability or inability to tolerate uncertainty. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance scores are intolerant of ambiguity hence can be distrustful and tend not to accept changes. Historical patterns of behavior become the hard rules and used by people as a way to escape from ambiguity and any forms of uncertainty. Violation of these rules and norms is opposed and view negatively. Structural formalization and centralization are high in these societies. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance societies are more tolerant of aberrations cultural norms.
 
In a culture with high uncertainty avoidance, followers tend to be highly obedient to leaders who they expect to conform to the ways that are historically accepted. Actions by the leaders that are beyond these historically accepted ways, in spite of successful possibilities, will tend to bring a feeling of uncertainty to the followers. This leads to perception of lower leadership efficacy (Yan and Hunt, 2005). The leadership attributes in these types of societies include: habitual, procedural, able to anticipate, formal and cautious. In return, the followers are expected to be reliable and punctual. Germany is one country that has very high certainty avoidance (Sims and Quattro, 2005).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Nevertheless, in a culture with low UA, followers are open to new ideas. In cases that the leader proposes new initiatives, even though they do not conform to norms, followers give more importance to the results. These societies tend to encourage entrepreneurship (Yan and Hunt, 2005). The leadership attributes in these societies are risk-taking, innovativeness, and initiative. The followers tend to be resourceful and able to improvise in times of crisis (Sims and Quattro, 2005).
 
宿命論或控制點—Fatalism or Locus of Control
 
Fatalism or locus of control is a cultural dimension that refers to the individual or cultural level locus of control. Basically, this dimension is oftentimes the center of empirical researches comparing the western and eastern cultures. Societies with weak fatalism or internal focus value self-discipline, hard work and honesty. Cultures with high fatalism have external locus of control and believe that events in their lives are brought about by uncontrollable forces.
 
In cultures with high fatalism or internal locus of control, leadership may not be attributed to achievement and performance. Followers tend to accept leaders who became so because of external forces such as powerful persons or institutions. Organizational failure will not be viewed as underperformance of the leader; neither will he be attributed in case of organizational success. Effective leadership can be perceived just by conforming to the prototype leader in the followers' minds (Yan and Hunt, 2005). Mexico is one country with high fatalism and people tend to be more wary of the future rather than current realities. Fatalism is high among Asian cultures too (Chhokar, et al., 2008).
 
Whereas, cultures with low fatalism or internal locus of control view that leadership is achieved through efforts and achievements. Leadership is connected to following values: contributions and efforts for organizational success, charisma, capabilities and influence. The leaders are responsible of their actions. Effective leadership is perceived based on organizational outcome. Success for the organization gives good impression for the leader. Otherwise, failure is also perceived as underperformance on the part of the leader. India has internal locus of control. The attributes for effective leaders are: effective communication, excellence, self-improvement, and understandabilty of current realities. Self-determinism as opposed to fatalism is high among Western cultures (Chhokar et al., 2008).
 
約旦與其領導力文化—Jordan and Leadership Culture
 
Jordan is a country in the midst of a region having peace problems and adverse economic conditions. Hence, with these problems government leaders face pressing challenges both in the economic and peace aspects within and outside the country. Not to mention, the country's very scarce natural resources triples the challenges as how other countries would face the challenge. Based on the cultural dimensions discussed in the previous section, the Jordanian culture of leadership and efficacy perception will be discussed in this section. However, due to lack of empirical research, leadership efficacy is equated to good governance and leadership may also be limited to political leadership.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
First, Jordan can be assessed as an individualist culture. The turmoil that the country experiences is solely attributed to the kingdom under reign or the ruling family. Hence, the leader must be able to perform superbly in order to succeed because failure will be his responsibility.
 
Secondly, the Jordanian people use the recognition-based leadership efficacy perception. The leader should satisfy the idea of the people on how and why the leader should be in order to be labeled as an effective leader. The leadership attributes common among the Jordanian people are: well-informed, good public or interpersonal communication, fairness in treatment, prompt in responding to inquiries, transparent and accessible (Yaghi, 2008).
 
Third, Jordan has very high masculinity. Aside from the fact that majority of the political leaders are male, social class, ethnicity, religion and opportunities made negative impacts for the female counterparts of the population. Moreover, this patriarchal culture explains why people attributes effective leadership on how they are treated, how prompt the leaders are to answer their inquiries. In other words, the leaders enjoy authority but must also give over all responsibility to the constituents (Yan and Hunt, 2005; Yaghi, 2008).
 
Fourth, Jordan has high power distance society. The ruling class remains to be the leaders without roles substitution. Moreover, status quo and social class may dictate many of the aspects in this society even in politics, gender, and other issues.
 
Fifth, Jordanian people have high uncertainty avoidance. King Abdullah, for example, faced much opposition when he backed up US forces in Iraq and Palestine because of the uncertainty it may cause to regional peace and even national peace in their country. In spite of this, the king pursued alliances with US peace keeping force (Ryan, 2002).
 
Lastly, Jordan has high fatalism culture. The people may not be open to changes. Hence, Jordanian leadership has the tendency not to propose legislation or any action that may cause dissatisfaction among the people by challenging previously set norms including gender roles and patriarchal control (Ryan, 2002).
 
Now, Jordan, under the leadership of King Abdullah has very stable international relationship with the US and United Kingdom. The country is also an active member of the IMF and World Bank. Hence, this has made economic intuitions in the country more stable than ever. It has also formed alliances with its regional neighbors such as Israel, Turkey and Syria. However, the peace problems in Iraq still pose dangers for the country. Nevertheless, it is evident that the country is satisfied with its international relations especially with the US. Last year, US and Jordan celebrated 60 years of alliance and friendship. After the free trade signed among the two countries, formation of Jordanian communities in America may follow (ABQ Zaywa, 2009).
 #p#分頁標題#e#