Leadership across cultures: attachment style influences.

As organizations are challenged to global leadership competence and to manage increasing diversity, it is critical to select and develop effective cross-cultural leaders. Technical competence and organizational experience are inadequate criteria; among the most crucial leadership characteristics are relationship competence and openness to new perspectives. These are difficult to train or develop in leaders because they derive from personal relationship tendencies called attachment styles, based on relatively enduring assumptions about self and others. Attachment styles affect work relationships and, thus, cross-cultural leadership effectiveness, and need to be considered by managers and their organizations in leadership selection and development programs.

Introduction

"It's not our differences that divide us; it's our judgments about each other that do" (Wheatley, 2002). Cultural or personality differences are rarely the source of interpersonal or inter-group conflict. The most common source is what might be called "mindsets," filters through which people view the world, self and others (e.g. Rhinesmith, 1992). Influenced by their mindsets, some people appreciate and work effectively with individual and cultural differences, while others are awkward, threatened or uncomfortable (Hopkins & Hopkins, 1998). Successful global or diversity leaders are open to new experiences and have excellent relationship skills (e.g. Black & Gregersen, 1999), drawn from their underlying positive mindsets about self and others (Manning, 2001). This paper argues that organizations which factor in these personal and cognitive criteria will select and develop more effective cross-cultural leaders, and that managers who direct change efforts towards their own mindsets can strengthen their interpersonal leadership capability.

The Cross-Cultural Challenge

The cry for effective leadership for cross-cultural organizations is both urgent and widespread. Gregersen, Morrison and Black (1998) reported that 85% of the Fortune 500 companies surveyed didn't think they had "an adequate number of global leaders, 67% of the firms think their existing leaders need additional skills and knowledge before they meet or exceed needed capabilities." Typically organizations have selected or promoted leaders for international assignments based on technical expertise and organizational commitment (e.g. Fish, 1999). The negative consequences have often been well-publicized and costly, including premature termination of the assignment, disappointing manager functioning, reduced organizational morale, cohesion and performance, (cf. Black & Gregersen, 1999; Hopkins & Hopkins, 1998). For instance, a recent cross-national study of 750 companies found that "between 10% and 20% of US managers sent abroad returned early because of job dissatisfaction or difficulties in adjusting to a foreign country. Of those who stayed for the duration, nearly one-third did not perform up to the expectations of their superiors" (Black & Gregersen, 1999).

Similarly, though benefits of gender, racial/ethnic and other kinds of organizational diversity have been promoted, "the incumbent challenges of leading a diverse work group are an unexplored side of the diversity movement" (Joplin & Daus, 1997). That a technically competent manager is not necessarily an effective leader of a diverse organization is suggested by the decreased organizational commitment of both majority and minority employees sometimes found in such organizations (e.g. Joplin & Daus, 1997). In their study DiStefano & Maznevski (2000) found that global, culturally diverse teams most often showed disappointing performance, submerging potentially fruitful differences into "lowest common denominator" functioning. High functioning diverse teams were much rarer (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000).

Leading across cultural differences, whether international or organizational, requires specific interpersonal attitudes and skills, as well as technical and organizational knowledge, as recognized by many global and diversity leadership training programs (e.g. DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Yeung & Ready, 1999; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997).

Characteristics of effective leaders of diversity

What qualities describe those who work well cross-culturally, either in a culture different from their own or in a diverse organization? Most critically, those effective in leading across cultures have relationship competence (e.g. Clark & Matze, 1999; Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney, 1997; Aditya & House, 2002; Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998). They "bring out the best in people" (Spreitzer et al, 1997), building trust through "emotionally connecting with people from different backgrounds" (Gregersen et al, 1998) and create mutually enhancing relationships (Clark & Matze, 1999). "The ability to establish an emotional identification with followers from a variety of cultures is an attribute that distinguishes leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Mahatma Gandhi, who recognized the needs of their followers and incorporated those needs into their convictions." (Joplin & Daus, 1997)

Aditya & House (2002) describe the characteristic as "interpersonal acumen," ability to understand others' motives and behavior. Companies successful in placing global managers look for relationship skills--a drive to communicate, broad-scale sociability, and collaborative negotiation abilities (Black & Gregersen, 1999). The GLOBE study found consensus across 62 nations that outstanding leaders were described by "encouraging, positive, motivational, confidence builder, dynamic, and foresight," along with team-building, communicating, and coordinating (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla & Dorfman, 1999). Echoing these results, Hopkins & Hopkins (1998) found that successful diversity leaders are sensitive to all followers, patient and supportive, able to mediate fairly, and involved with their employees.

Secondly, cross-cultural leaders are open to new experiences. This has been described as a desire to see and experience new things, as having "unbridled inquisitiveness" (Gregersen et al., 1998), or as being "cross-culturally adventurous" (Spreitzer et al, 1997). Black and Gregersen's research (1999) with U.S., European and Japanese companies indicates that those with a successful track record with international managers "put a candidate's openness to new cultures on an equal footing with the person's technical know-how." They break openness down into two factors: a cosmopolitan orientation--an attitude of openness to others' values and practices--and cultural flexibility, the willingness to experiment with different customs. Additionally, insightfulness, personal courage and commitment to success are seen as crucial to high achievement in international managers (e.g. Spreitzer et al, 1997).

Many readers will have noted the similarity between competencies of effective global/cross-cultural leaders and those of transformational leaders (e.g. Bass, 1998). Transformational leadership can be described as a leader's pattern of personal/group interactions which result in empowering group members to high performance, satisfaction and leadership development (Bass, 1985, 1998; Kouzes and Posner, 1987). Models of transformational leadership typically include aspects of charismatic/inspirational influence, constituent development, intellectual openness, vision-sharing and role modeling (e.g. Bass, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1987).

Is transformational leadership effective cross-culturally? Bass (1997, 1998) relies on studies in many types of organizations across the world to support that claim. House's multinational GLOBE study (e.g. Den Hartog et al, 1999; House & Aditya, 1997) confirms that elements of transformational leadership such as vision, proactivity and ability to motivate are recognized universally as effective change leadership, while leaders whose task and relationship behaviors are congruent with culturally accepted models of leadership are more effective in a given culture.

The convergence of the empirical research on global/diversity leaders and models of emotional intelligence (e.g. Goleman, 1998) is also evident. Both emotional intelligence and transformational leadership are characterized by the relationship competence and open-mindedness of effective cross-cultural leaders. Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership are very strongly related (e.g. Gardner & Stough, 2002; Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002; Barling, Slater & Kelloway, 2000; Palmer, Walls, Burgess & Stough, 2001). As would be predicted by the cross-cultural leadership competencies, emotional self-regulation and recognition of others' emotions (empathy) were most strongly related to transformational leadership in Gardner & Stough's study (2002).

Where can organizations get more high potential cross-cultural leaders? Can they train transformational leadership and/or emotional intelligence? Do they offer diversity workshops to broaden managers' understanding of cultural and other differences? Organizations taking these paths without recognizing the deeper relationship issues involved have had limited success, and in some cases may do more harm than good (e.g. Joplin & Daus, 1997). Clark & Matze (1999) encourage organizations to focus their global leadership development efforts on building managers' relational competence, while others increase effectiveness of global teams by acknowledging the value of their differences and developing the relationship skills to work creatively with them (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000).

Though promising, the latter two approaches also ignore the deeper level of relationship competence. This article asserts that relationship competence, emotional intelligence and transformational leadership all derive from the same underlying "strata" of human motivation, which are relationship tendencies developed early in life, modified through life experience, and lived out in work and personal experiences. Unless these "working models" of relationships, called attachment styles, are taken into account, leadership selection and training efforts will likely have limited success.

Attachment as the origin of relational/interpersonal competence

According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), feelings of security or insecurity arise from children's inborn tendency to look to caregivers (usually parents) for meeting basic needs, for safe haven in time of distress, and as a secure base for exploration. Based on caregivers' responsiveness, children develop differing cognitive/emotional "working models" of relationships, affecting interpersonal behavior in predictable ways from childhood to adulthood (Ainsworth et al, 1978).

How does attachment style vary? If early caregivers are perceived as generally responsive to children's needs, children are likely to be securely attached, comfortable with themselves and others, enjoying closeness while able to be autonomous. "The sense of having a secure base provides an individual with a framework for maintaining well-being, formulating effective emotional-regulation devices, developing positive models of the self and others, and engaging in exploration and risk-taking" (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001).

When caregivers are perceived as non-responsive or inconsistently responsive to children's needs, children take it personally, developing insecure attachment styles with anxiety about or avoidance of relationships--or both. Expanding Ainsworth et al's (1978) two insecure childhood styles (avoidant and anxious-ambivalent), Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) fleshed out three insecure adult styles, varying in views of self and of others. "Preoccupied" adults (Ainsworth' s anxious-ambivalents) have negative views of self and positive views of others. "Dismissive" adults are self-confident and self-reliant, distrustful of others and of close relationships, while "Fearful" adults have negative perceptions of themselves and of others; both of these were included in Ainsworth et al (1978)'s avoidant style. Studies find that in the United States the majority of adults describe themselves as securely attached, with a sizeable minority of dismissive types and fewer preoccupied or fearful styles (Mickelsen, Kessler & Shaver, 1997).

One way to illustrate the distinctions between secure and insecure adult attachment styles is to use the descriptions from one self-report measure, the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Adults are asked to indicate which of the following statements sounds most like them:

Secure attachment style--"It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me."

Insecure attachment style--Dismissive: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me."

Insecure attachment style--Fearful: "I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others."

Insecure attachment style--Preoccupied: "I want to be emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them."

As attachment theory predicts, attachment styles do seem to be both universal and durable. They were originally utilized to describe variations in children's interpersonal behavior but have consequently been demonstrated in adults all over the world. The consensus from extensive cross-cultural research is that the attachment system is an innate and universal one, built on infants' neediness and dependency upon care-giving. However, the cultural context in which a child is raised influences both the likelihood and the specific behaviors of secure and insecure attachment styles (Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). Additional evidence for universality comes from research that, despite variations in parenting norms across cultures in Asia, Africa, Europe, South and North America, parents from all these areas identify a securely attached child as the ideal child (e.g. Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999).

Though much adult attachment research focuses on intimate relationships, in the last decade or so researchers have demonstrated that attachment also applies in work settings (c.f. Hazan & Shaver, 1990). For instance, Pietromonaco and Barrett (1997) found that attachment style influenced perceptions of self and others, negative and positive emotions, and feelings of closeness in all types of daily interpersonal interactions. As expected, attachment style differences were most evident in attachment-relevant, high conflict situations (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997).

Why attachment style matters to cross-cultural competence

Exactly how does an attachment style developed in childhood influence adult interpersonal behavior? Childhood attachment style's influence on adult prosocial outcomes such as relationship competence and transformational leadership seems to be mediated by the development of interpersonal competencies such as empathy, self-disclosure, collaborative approach to conflict, and social interest (e.g. Englund, Levy, Hyson & Sroufe, 2000). In childhood and adolescence, attachment style has been linked to emotional adjustment or ego development (e.g. Win, 1999), social competence (e.g. Rice, Cunningham & Young, 1997) and concern for others' welfare (Eberly and Montemayer, 1999; Baker, 1999). These seem likely precursors of adult relationship competence, emotional intelligence and even of transformational leadership.

Much adult research demonstrates the connection between attachment styles, work attitudes and work behavior. Individuals with different attachment styles behave characteristically differently in the workplace. For example, securely attached adults demonstrate the relationship competence characteristic of effective global/diversity leaders. They are more sociable and socially competent (Caldwell, 1995; Hahn, 1995), likely to use collaborative communication (Kummel, 1999), less anxious about and more open to negative interpersonal feedback (Neuson, 1998; Mcclain, 1996). Consistent with adolescent research, they report higher levels of personal competence, more confidence in their social skills (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000) and higher self-esteem than insecurely attached adults (Meyers, 1998), while being less afraid of success (Dankner, 1995).

Probably based on these interpersonal skills, securely attached adults also work more effectively with others than insecurely attached adults. For instance, securely attached adult management students are better able to use their expertise to analyze business cases and more optimistic about resolving them (Summerville, 2000). Securely attached adults handle conflict more constructively than those who are insecure, using mutual conflict styles of integrating and compromising and engaging in more perspective-taking in a conflict situation (Mikulincer, 1998; Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000). In a sample of Dutch adults, participants who behaved cooperatively, rather than competitively or individualistically, in a simulation were more likely to be securely attached (Van Lunge, DeBruin, Otten & Joireman, 1997). Secure adults also tended to be more relationship-oriented than task-oriented leaders (Doverspike, Hollis, Justice and Polomsky, 1997), similar to effective cross-cultural leaders.

Securely attached adults in a variety of occupations report high job/work satisfaction (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Hardy and Barkham, 1994; Manning, 2001; Toepfer, 1996) while securely attached corporate executives reported more life satisfaction than insecurely attached peers (Toepfer, 1996). Securely attached dual-career parents reported the most work rewards and, for men, fewer job-related concerns (Vasquez, Durik & Hyde, 2002). They experience less work stress and fewer physical or mental health symptoms (Shirmer, 2000), are seen as more resilient ((Klohnen & Bera, 1998), and cope with stress more adaptively than those with insecure styles (Caldwell, 1995). This may be linked to their better anger management; secure adults are less anger-prone and less likely to attribute negative motives to others (Mikulincer, 1998).

Secure adults are also more likely to use problem-focused coping and to feel more confident to cope in a stressful military training situation (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995). Securely attached college students in the US and Israel were able to seek support when needed (Larose, Bemier, Soucy & Duchesne, 1999; Mikulincer, Florian & Weller, 1993) and adults were more satisfied with support received from their supervisors (Schirmer, 2000). Securely attached university employees also experienced more positive spillover from personal to work life and vice versa than insecurely attached employees (Sumer & Knight, 2001).

Though attachment can be seen to have implications wherever people work together, its connection to leadership has been slow to be made. Only a few studies have directly linked leadership and attachment; they demonstrate that securely attached adults are more likely to be effective or transformational leaders. Securely attached military recruits were nominated as leaders more often by peers than were preoccupied recruits (Mikulincer and Florian, 1995), while secure owners/managers of small businesses were more confident in and willing to delegate to their employees than insecure executives (Johnston, 2000). Securely attached adults were more likely to display transformational leadership characteristics in three samples of Israeli police cadets, military recruits, and squad commanders (Popper, Mayseless and Castelnovo, 2000) and in the top management team of a multi-site US human services agency (Manning, 2001) than insecurely attached adults. The organizational ripple effects of attachment style went even further than impact on individuals, however; the decision-making structure of small companies reflected the attachment style of owners/managers, with avoidant (dismissive) managers presiding over more centralized domains than secure managers (Johnston, 2000).

In summary, secure attachment can be seen as the foundation for the relationship competence and open-mindedness of cross-cultural competence as well of transformational leadership. However, managers with avoidant/dismissive attachment styles are very likely to be selected for critical leadership positions through current methods of selecting global/diversity leaders--with very unsatisfactory consequences. The reasons can be seen in the weaker interpersonal skills and cognitive functioning of the avoidant/dismissive adult.

Avoidant/dismissive adults have high overall work satisfaction, similar to securely attached adults (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Hardy & Barkham, 1994; Manning, 2001; Toepfer, 1996). In fact, avoidant executives and other employed adults are so work-oriented that they report deriving "major satisfaction from work" (Toepfer, 1996), and are the most frustrated when not challenged and recognized at work (Hardy & Barkham, 1994). Avoidantly attached recruits report themselves to be more task-oriented than relationship-oriented as leaders, yet were nominated as leaders by peers along with securely attached colleagues (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995).

The high work involvement and performance standards of avoidant adults probably leads to their nomination as leaders and to their selection for critical management positions, including cross-cultural ones (cf. Mikulincer & Florian, 1995). For instance, dismissively attached executives in a human services agency were slightly more likely to be in top than middle management positions (Manning, 2001).

In contrast with secure adults, however, avoidant adults are significantly less satisfied with interpersonal aspects of work, particularly with coworkers (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Hardy & Barkham, 1994; Manning, 2001; Toepfer, 1996). Avoidant executives and other adults prioritize work over personal relations on and off the job (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Manning, 2001), are significantly less satisfied with their lives as a whole than securely attached adults (Toepfer, 1996) and may structure social (and other) activities in ways to minimize closeness (Tidwell, Reis & Shaver, 1996). This suggests that that they lack the relationship competence of the cross-cultural leader. In fact Popper (2000) argues that avoidant adults are likely to be personalized charismatic leaders, exploiting followers for personal gain, while securely attached managers will show socialized charismatic (or transformational) leadership, bringing out the best in others.

The openness to experience characteristic of the global/diversity leader is also less likely in avoidantly attached adults. They tend to view others more negatively (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and in a relatively inflexible and over-simplified way, compared to secure and preoccupied adults (Green-Hennessy & Reis, 1998). They also use more defensive cognitive strategies in problem solving and stressful situations (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Mikulincer, Florian & Weller, 1993; Mikulincer, 1998). Their lower use of collaborative conflict resolution styles is related to lower levels of perspective-taking (ability to see others' points of view) and lower social self-efficacy than secure adults (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000).

Avoidant women were seen as more distant, defensive, and vulnerable to stress by observers than securely attached women in a comprehensive 31-year longitudinal study (Klohnen & Bera, 1998). At each assessment, observer ratings confirmed avoidant women's self-descriptions that women felt "less confident in social situations, less close to others, and less trusting while also being more self-reliant and unemotional." (Klohnen & Bera, 1998) However, avoidant adults' use of defenses often buffers them; they report lower levels of anxiety and depression and, when receiving negative interpersonal feedback in task groups, less anxiety than those with other insecure attachment styles (Mcclain, 1996).

Of the other two insecure attachment styles, preoccupied and fearful adults are less likely to be chosen as managers for critical assignments than secure or dismissive managers. They are the least satisfied with work and work relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Manning, 2001) and more likely to use defensive, rather than adaptive, coping strategies (Kummel, 1999; Mikulincer, Florian & Weller, 1993). They are more likely than secure or dismissive participants to report that issues in their personal lives negatively impacted their work (Sumer & Knight, 2001) and less likely to be nominated as leaders by peers (Mikulincer and Florian, 1995). Preoccupied college students reported worse physical and mental health, less task persistence, more anxiety and tension, and less satisfaction with social support than secure participants (Caldwell, 1995) and processed information less well in complex social situations (Miller, 1996).

Fearfully attached adults have been included in less research, since the avoidant classification formerly included both dismissive and the fearful attachment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Vasquez, Durik & Hyde (2002) found that fearful adults reported more work overload and fewer work rewards than securely attached adults. They commented "The differences between dismissing and fearful categories also suggest that a positive view of the self is more influential on work and family outcomes than a positive view of others."

Secure attachment style and its outgrowth, transformational leadership, underlie two of the most critical cross-cultural leadership competencies. Organizations and individual managers need to consider this to increase their success in developing leaders of diversity.

Implications of attachment style for increasing effective global and diversity leadership:

Organizational implications

1. Select managers with secure attachment style for diverse or cross-cultural assignments

If technical competence and organizational commitment are criteria for cross-cultural assignments (e.g. Fish, 1999), companies are probably not sending the right people into these situations. Without including consideration of managers' attachment style, they're very likely to select avoidant/dismissive managers, whose technical and organizational expertise along with heavy investment in work, makes them look like excellent candidates. Even Goleman's (1998) advice that organizations look for people who love their work and are committed to the organization could steer organizations towards avoidant, as well as secure, leaders. This tendency to equate high work performance and work satisfaction with leadership might also explain why peers were likely to nominate both secure and avoidant persons as group leaders, as previously mentioned (Mikulincer and Florian, 1995).

Can organizations assess attachment style in selecting cross-cultural managers? There are many direct measures of attachment style (e.g. Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), but their connection to job criteria is less obvious and they may be perceived as intrusive. Instead, organizations could use assessments of relationship competence, e.g. interpersonal aspects of emotional intelligence or of transformational leadership, along with more traditional technical and performance assessments, to select managers for challenging cross-cultural assignments.

The use of 360[degrees] leadership assessment, particularly attending to direct reports' ratings of their manager's relationship leadership, can offer valuable insight. Supervisor reports will probably be less valid, because supervisors tend to value and notice performance-oriented behavior more than relationship behaviors. Black and Gregersen (1999) report that "the companies that manage expats successfully use a variety of tools to assess cultural sensitivity, from casual observation to formal testing. Interestingly, however, almost all evaluate people early in their careers in order to eliminate some from the potential pool of expats and help others build cross-cultural skills."

2. Assist managers with insecure attachment styles to develop more positive attitudes towards diversity and stronger relationship leadership skills

Managers with avoidant/dismissive attachment styles are likely to be high in work motivation, satisfaction and performance, while those with preoccupied or fearful attachment probably have emotional spillover from personal life or work conflict that negatively impact their performance. Organizations wanting to maximize human capital may individualize leadership development efforts towards the work performance issues or the work difficulties specific to each attachment style, particularly with a valued or otherwise high potential senior person. Based on his research, Judge (2001) recommends that "global leadership development programs need to be tailored to the individual, be long-term in nature, and should be focused on both the inner person and their outer skills."

Again, a place for organizations to start is by doing 360 [degrees] leadership assessment. While securely attached persons, like those high in emotional intelligence, may have more managerial self-awareness, or congruence between their leadership ratings and those of observers (Sosik & Megerian, 1999), even securely attached managers who are younger, less senior or from minority groups may underrate themselves (e.g. Manning, 2002). Using these tools in a constructive leadership development setting can aid managers with both secure and insecure attachment styles to benefit from feedback, and can help avoidant managers see the value of the "soft side" of leadership, rather than focus on task accomplishment.

Individual implications

1. Minimize the impact of insecure attachment styles on leading diverse organizations

A few recent studies treat attachment as a personal state, which can be increased or decreased, as well as a trait, more enduring and consistent. A common example might be anxiety, which can describe a person's typical personality (e.g. "he's a very anxious person") and/or be increased or decreased in a given situation (e.g. "she's very anxious about her performance appraisal"). In an interesting variant on research on attachment style categorization, adults "primed" with statements about secure attachment were more open to explore new experiences and novel stimuli than those "primed" with statements about insecure attachment (Green and Campbell, 2000). Similarly, Mikulincer & Shaver (2001) found that adults primed with reminders of their closest relationships were more open to diverse others and less likely to stereotype than those with insecure priming. Interestingly, this effect didn't depend upon their current attachment styles.

Based on this, it seems likely that individuals can "securely prime" themselves as they enter new situations where their insecure attachment styles might typically lead them to close themselves off from others. Reminders of close relationships or of those upon whom one can depend will be likely to lead to more curiosity, openness, and less reliance upon stereotypes in approaching others.

A second strategy can address the difficulty that avoidant/dismissive adults have with trusting people, which has a direct impact on their comfort in and willingness to delegate. In several steps, managers can challenge their beliefs that "nobody will do it as well as I can" or "the stakes are too high to allow mistakes." First, managers need to recognize that that their problem trusting others is a personal problem, not located in the employees they're reluctant to trust. Second, managers can increase their confidence in high potential employees by utilizing the situational leadership model for employee development (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 1996). As they direct, coach, and support employees in accomplishing relevant tasks, managers are also developing their own knowledge of and confidence in employees' ability to do the tasks. This can allow them to "make an exception" to their general distrust of employees and begin the process of delegating.

The third step involves beginning to delegate smaller tasks to a well-trained employee and gradually working up to larger ones as both the employee and the manager gain confidence. While this process may not change the manager's overriding attachment style, the author has found that using it can help increase comfort in delegation, rather than continued micromanagement of employees.

2. Monitor and shift responses in an attachment style-triggering situation

Research indicates that responding based on one's attachment style is more likely to occur in an "attachment-relevant, high conflict situation" (Pietromonaco and Barrett, 1997). Recognizing those situations in which one doesn't usually do too well, e.g. subordinate challenges to one's credibility or authority, can allow a less automatic and more considered response by someone with avoidant attachment. Those with a more anxious attachment style, i.e. preoccupied or fearful, would probably find potential "rejection" situations to be most threatening and likely to elicit attachment-related automatic responses.

To work effectively with diverse others, strategies based on cognitive therapy will also be helpful. Neck & Smith (1997) give evidence for the usefulness of "thought self-management" in diversity leadership. They suggest challenging dysfunctional beliefs about others, finding ways to view obstacles as opportunities, developing constructive self-talk, and using mental imagery of success as ways to work more successfully in diverse organizations. In a similar vein, Mendleson & Mendleson (1996) describe a two stage process to leading diverse organizations, where stage one involves confronting one's own assumptions and stereotypes, while stage 2 is a mutually respectful, relationship-oriented action plan for changing a difficult interpersonal situation.

3. Decrease insecure attachment and increase secure attachment

People can change their habitual attachment styles, though it isn't easy. Along with stability of attachment style, research finds attachment style change, often involving moving from an insecure to a secure attachment style (Davila, Burge & Hammen, 1997; Ruvolo, Fabin & Ruvolo, 2001; Fraley, 2002). Attachment style tends to be stable when environmental conditions are consistent, and be influenced by adverse life events, such as divorce (e.g. Waters, Merrick, et al, 2000; Lewis, Ferring & Rosenthal, 2000). Counseling or therapy has also been linked to increases in attachment security and, in one British study, to a reduction in work problems and an increase in work satisfaction (Hardy & Barkham, 1994).

Short-term or quick-fix change efforts are unlikely to challenge "working models" of relationships enough to increase a person's attachment security (Fraley, 2002). Fraley's work (2002) suggests that for enduring change to take place, some consistent aspect of the person's environment must change, whether through a therapeutic intervention or through personal change efforts. For instance, if an avoidantly attached manager has a view of others as untrustworthy, continued association with a very trustworthy person may help the manager begin to change that pattern.

Conclusion

While the demand for global and diversity leaders grows exponentially, choosing such leaders is too often based on technical and organizational expertise, inadequate preparation for the interpersonal demands of leading diverse teams and organizations. The relationship skills and cognitive competencies needed for effective leadership of these organizations are grounded in secure attachment styles, relatively enduring interpersonal frameworks essential to consider in cross-cultural leadership development efforts. Organizations will benefit from selecting secure managers and strengthening the relationship competencies of insecurely attached managers, while managers can use situational and long-term change strategies to increase their efficacy in diversity situations.

References

Aditya, R. N. & House, R. J. (2002). Interpersonal acumen and leadership across cultures: Pointers from the GLOBE study. In R.E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy and F. J. Pirozzolo. (Eds.). Multiple intelligences and leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baker, H. E. (1999). Attachment style and career development among college-aged adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161.

Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52 (2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). The right way to manage expats. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 52-59.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1, Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Caldwell, R. L. (1995). Attachment style and personality functioning among normal adults. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A& M University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4619.

Clark, B. D. & Matze, M. G. (1999). A core of global leadership: relational competence. Advances in Global Leadership, Vol I, 127-161.

Corcoran, K. O. & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective-taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4), 473-483.

Dankner, D. (1995). Work inhibitions in women and the mother-daughter relationship. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 519.

Davila, J. Burge, D. & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 826-838.

Den Hartog, D.N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. & Dorfman, P.W. (1999). Culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-257.

DiStefano, J. J. & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-64.

Doverspike, D., Hollis, L., Justice, A., and Polomsky, M. (1997). Correlations between leadership styles as measured by the Least Preferred Co-Workers Scale and adults' attachment style. Psychological Reports, 81, 1148-1150.

Eberly, M. B. & Montemayor, R. (1999). Adolescent affection and helpfulness towards parents; a 2-year follow-up. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(2), 226-248.

Englund, M. M., Levy, A. K., Hyson, D. M. & Sroufe, L. A. (2000). Adolescent social competence: Effectiveness in a group setting. Child Development, 71(4), 1049-1060.

Fish, A. (1999). Selecting managers for cross-border assignments: building value into the process. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(4), 461-463.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151.

Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76, 93-104.

Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J. & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21-33.

Green, J. D. & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 452-461.

Green-Hennessy, S. & Reis, H. T. (1998). Openness in processing social information among attachment types. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 449-466.

Hahn, N. B. (1995) Adult attachment style, coping style, defensive processes, and memory in college women. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2370.

Hardy, G. E. and Barkham, M. (1994). The relationship between interpersonal attachment styles and work difficulties. Human Relations, 47(3), 263-281.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. & Johnson, D. (1996). Management of organizational behavior, 7th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hopkins, W. E. & Hopkins, S. A. (1998). Diversity leadership: A mandate for the 21st century workforce. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 129-141.

House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-474.

Johnston, M. A. (2000). Delegation and organizational structure in small businesses. Group and Organizational Management, 25(1), 4-21.

Joplin, J. R. W. & Daus, C. S. (1997). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 32-48.

Judge, W. Q. (2001). Is a leader's character culture-bound or culture-free? An empirical comparison of the character traits of American and Taiwanese CEOs. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 63-79.

Larose, S., Bernier, A., Soucy, N. & Duchesne, S. (1999). Attachment style dimensions, network orientation, and the process of seeking help from college teachers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 225-247.

Klohnen, E. C. & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly and securely attached women across adulthood: A 31-year longitudinal perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 211-223.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kummel, P. E. (1999). Bringing your family to work: Attachment in the workplace. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 3747.

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Development, 71(3), 707-720.

Manning, T.T. (2001). Love and work revisited: Attachment style, work attitudes and transformational leadership. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.

Manning, T.T. (2002). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Women in Management Review. 17(5), 207-216.

Mcclain, M. A. (1996). Attachment style and differential emotional responsiveness to positive and negative interpersonal feedback. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 5816.

Mendleson, J. L. & Mendleson, C. D. (1996). An action plan to improve difficult communication. HR Magazine, 41(10), 118-125.

Meyers, S. A. (1998). Personality correlates of adult attachment style. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), 407-410.

Mickelson, K. D.; Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1092-1106.

Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional vs. dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 513-524.

Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 406-414.

Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 817-826.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 97-115.

Miller, J. B. (1997) Social flexibility and anxious attachment. Personal Relationships, 3(3), 241-256.

Neck, C. P. & Smith, W. J. (1997). Thought self-management: A self-regulatory approach to diversity management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(3/4), 190-204.

Neuson, L. A. (1998). The effects of attachment style in college students' behavior in small groups. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 6242.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 5-10.

Pietromonaco, P. R. & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (6), 1409-1423.

Popper, M. (2000). The development of charismatic leaders. Political Psychology, 21(4), 729-744.

Popper, M., Mayseless, O. and Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 267-289.

Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global mindsets for global managers. Training and Development Journal, 46(10), 63-69.

Rice, K. G., Cunningham, T. J. & Young, M. B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social competence, and emotional well-being: A comparison of Black and White late adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 89-101.

Ruvolo, A. P., Fabin, L. A., & Ruvolo, C. M. (2001). Relationship experiences and change in attachment characteristics of young adults: The role of relationship breakups and conflict avoidance. Personal Relationships, 8(3), 265-281.

Shirmer, L. L. (2000) Interrelationships among adult attachment style, work stress, social support, and indexes of strain. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2389.

Sivanathan, N. & Fekken, G. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and transformational leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(4), 198-204.

Sosik, J. J. & Megarian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Group and Organizational Management, 24(3), 367-393.

Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 629.

Sumer, H. C. & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 653-663.

SummerviUe, M. W. (2000) Attachment style in adult learning: implications for the person-environment interaction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 853.

Tidwell, M. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71(4), 729-745

Toepfer, E. A. (1996) The career satisfaction and success of corporate executives: The relationship among attachment style, sex-type and gender. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1485.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy. & P. R. Shaver (Ed.) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: The Guilford Press.

Van Lange, P. A. M., DeBruin, E. M. N., Otten, W. & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733-746.

Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M. & Hyde, J. S. (2002). Family and work: implications of adult attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 874-886.

Waters, E., Merick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J. & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.

Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Win, J. D. (1999). Factors that contribute to the utilization of social supports in adolescence. (Doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 4545.

Yeung, A.K. & Ready, D. A. (1999). Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations: A comparative study in eight nations. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 529-547.

Tracey T. Manning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD