The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2059-5794.htm

Humanistic leadership in Thailand: Humanistic

leadership in
a mix of indigenous and global Thailand

aspects using a
cross-cultural perspective
Davina Vora Received 19 January 2020
Revised 1 June 2020
School of Business, State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, Accepted 3 June 2020
New York, USA, and
Astrid Kainzbauer
College of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – To explore how leadership behavior in Thailand relates to humanistic leadership through
indigenous and cross-cultural lenses.
Design/methodology/approach – Analogically based and semi-structured interviews were used. The
primary focus was on factors associated with expatriate success in leading Thais in a Thai context. As such, the
main sample included 24 expatriates. Two local Thai leaders were also interviewed. Qualitative interviews
were analyzed inductively using NVivo.
Findings – Five interrelated themes emerged from the data: guiding, bridging, emotionally supporting,
socializing and indirectly communicating. These themes relate to Asian holistic thinking, Thai culture and
humanistic management. Evidence for humanistic leadership was found, albeit in culture-specific ways.
Research limitations/implications – Researchers may benefit from studying local, indigenous leadership
practices and determining if and how they fit etic concepts such as humanistic leadership. Limitations of this
study include a small sample from only one country.
Practical implications – To be successful, leaders should engage in humanistic leadership practices that fit
the Thai context. Human resource departments may wish to focus their talent recruitment, selection and
development on these behaviors.
Originality/value – This paper adds to the nascent literature on humanistic leadership by providing an
indigenous as well as cross-cultural lens to understanding humanistic leadership in the context of Thailand.
Keywords Humanistic leadership, Expatriates, Qualitative methods, Thailand
Paper type Research paper

What makes someone an effective global leader? Are there universal approaches, or must
leaders adapt to each culture using indigenous concepts? Is one leadership theory more
explanatory than others in explaining effectiveness across cultures and countries? These are
questions that have long been asked by practitioners as well as international management
scholars. Considering the increasingly globalized nature of work, it is important to determine
how to effectively lead in different country and cultural contexts.
The literature at this point is unclear about what approach may be best. Some suggest that
emic, country-specific characteristics are key, exploring how the local cultural context
influences indigenous, country-specific leadership styles (e.g. Chai et al., 2016; Zhang et al.,
2012). In contrast, others take an etic approach, examining how leadership styles
predominantly developed in the West, such as trait, behavioral and contingency
approaches, apply to the rest of the world (e.g. Steers et al., 2012; Takahashi et al., 2012).
Some take a middle ground. For example, the GLOBE project explored similarities in
leadership preferences across cultures, while also finding that certain (etic) leadership Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management
dimensions are culturally contingent (Dickson et al., 2012; Dorfman et al., 2012). Meanwhile, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
global leadership scholars suggest that global leaders have certain traits, skills and abilities DOI 10.1108/CCSM-01-2020-0008
CCSM that help them manage diverse stakeholders (Mendenhall, 2006; Osland et al., 2012). It is safe
to say that there are many different views about what constitutes effective leadership,
particularly in different cultural and country contexts.
One theory that is gaining attention is humanistic leadership. Although absent from major
reviews of leadership theory (e.g. Avolio et al., 2009; Dinh et al., 2014; House and Aditya, 1997;
Zhu et al., 2019), as this Special Issue suggests, interest in humanistic leadership is growing,
and it may be one way to resolve tensions between emic and etic, local and global approaches
to leadership. For example, respecting and caring for others holistically can be viewed as
aspects of humanistic leadership that could apply across cultural and country contexts. Yet
the ways in which these values and behaviors are demonstrated likely vary by cultural
context. So, the indigenous lens is likely to be informative in understanding humanistic
leadership around the world. As Davila and Elvira (2012) suggest, a hybrid approach where
indigenous as well as local adaptations of non-indigenous practices may be informative in
understanding leadership styles. Examining local leadership practices with a global
humanistic perspective may show links between global and local leadership behaviors.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how leadership behaviors in Thailand relate to
humanistic leadership. We study Thailand because its values appear to be consistent with
humanistic leadership. With its strong tradition of spirituality based in Buddhism, Thai
culture is characterized by an orientation toward compassion, friendliness and humility
(Browell, 2000; Niffenegger et al., 2006). Buddhism teaches to care for others more than
oneself, or, in other words, to give more than take. Thai society also displays a strong
relationship orientation: Thais are taught to help each other and depend on each other
(Niffenegger et al., 2006). This provides an ideal backdrop for studying humanistic leadership
with its focus on caring, concern for others and relational orientation (Mel
e, 2016; Pirson and
Lawrence, 2010).
We extend research on humanistic leadership not only by exploring it in the Thai context
but also applying it to the global, cross-cultural context through focusing on expatriate
experiences in leading local Thai employees. Research on intercultural dynamics suggests
that interactions between locals and foreigners influence perceptions and behaviors (e.g. Liu
et al., 2018; Shaw, 1990). Through interaction with locals, expatriates develop knowledge and
practices that allow them to become competent intercultural practitioners. This presumes an
awareness of local cultural norms and their relevance for interaction, as well as an ability to
adjust to cultural differences (Heizmann et al., 2018). In support of this, there is a large body of
research suggesting that individuals such as expatriates can develop cultural competencies,
adapt to other cultures and recognize cultural norms and values (e.g. Bird et al., 2010; Liu et al.,
2018; Takeuchi et al., 2005). With regard to leadership, research suggests that not only do
cultures endorse different leadership behaviors (e.g. House and Aditya, 1997; House et al.,
2004) but that expatriates recognize this and adapt accordingly (Tsai et al., 2019). Therefore,
expatriates can be expected to recognize local cultural norms as well as the need to adapt to
the local context. In addition, expatriates are considered critical for multinational
corporations’ competitiveness (Clegg and Gray, 2002; Tahir, 2018). They are commonly
employed by companies for transferring knowledge, building social capital and developing
the organization (Harzing, 2001; Reiche et al., 2009). Given the high use of expatriates by firms,
particularly in developing and emerging markets (Clegg and Gray, 2002), recognizing
expatriates’ views of how to engage with the local context to effectively lead Thais can be
beneficial for firms and other expatriates who may be struggling with leading in a Thai
context.
By focusing on expatriate leaders and coupling these insights with those of Thai leaders, a
more complete picture of what is perceived as important in leading Thais can be gained. This
could provide valuable insight from an international human resources perspective, as
organizations may benefit from recognizing locally relevant leadership behaviors.
Theoretically, this approach provides both an indigenous and cross-cultural lens for Humanistic
exploring the relatively new concept of humanistic leadership in a Thai context. leadership in
Theoretical background
Thailand
Humanistic leadership draws from the field of humanistic management. As Acevedo (2012)
mentions, much of the work on humanistic management has been drawn from IESE’s
international symposiums on ethics, business and society, leading to several special issues in
the Journal of Business Ethics (e.g. Mel
e, 2009; Mel
e et al., 2011). Despite this literature being
fairly new (Arnaud and Wasieleski, 2014), humanistic management is gaining increased
attention, with the Humanistic Management Journal being founded in 2016 and several books
and collected editions on the topic (e.g. von Kimakowitz et al., 2011; Spitzeck et al., 2009).
In general, humanistic management focuses on individuals in terms of their humanity,
common human needs and virtues (Mel
e, 2003). A key philosophical distinction is often made
between economism and humanism (Mel
e, 2013; Pirson, 2017; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010).
The economistic view sees individuals instrumentally, as ways to achieve business goals in a
short-term, transactional, mechanistic context (Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). In contrast, the
humanistic perspective considers humans, social relationships, community and moral values
to be vital (Mel
e, 2003, 2009, 2016; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Human dignity is considered
fundamental to this perspective (Pirson, 2017). From a humanistic management perspective,
employees are individuals who should flourish in firms (Acevedo, 2012; Fritz and
S€orgel, 2017).
Beyond the basic distinction between economism and humanism, there are several
different views of what constitutes humanistic management. For example, some suggest
humanistic management is built upon three pillars: respect for human dignity, engaging in
ethical reflection when making decisions and engaging with stakeholders (Sharma, 2019).
Others suggest that humanistic management helps to link personal and community good
through four main principles: prioritizing long-term over short-term commitment,
considering the common good of a larger community, facing conflict to achieve a unified
vision and considering realities to be more important than ideas (Fr
emeaux and Michaelson,
2017). Still others focus on different themes related to the broad notion of being concerned
with humanity in a broad sense. For example, some discuss principles of cosmopolitan ethics
and responsible leadership, focusing on the importance of human dignity (e.g. Maak and
Pless, 2009; Mea and Sims, 2019; Spitzeck, 2011), while others mention links between
transformational leadership and humanistic perspectives of inspiring and engaging others
based on moral values (Pirson, 2017; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). While synthesizing all the
work on humanistic management is beyond the scope of this paper, one major theme of this
literature is concern for people and their well-being – beyond simply their economic,
utilitarian uses in an organizational setting.
With regard to humanistic leadership, although there are similarities to transformational,
servant and authentic leadership (e.g. Acevedo, 2012; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010), these are
not equivalent (Fritz and S€orgel, 2017). For example, the components of transformational
leadership do not directly match those of humanism. Although transformational leadership’s
component of individualized consideration is consistent with humanism’s value of fostering
personal growth among followers (Bass, 1996; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Mel
e, 2016), this is
not the case for the other three components. Idealized influence and inspirational motivation
whereby leaders provide a common vision that unites followers and inspire loyalty and
admiration (Bass, 1996; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999) are not clearly vital to humanistic
leadership. Similarly, intellectual stimulation of encouraging followers to question
assumptions, beliefs and typical solutions (Bass, 1996; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999) does
not seem critical to humanistic leadership – though it is feasible this may encourage self-
actualization and growth.
CCSM Given the difference between humanism and other related leadership concepts, there
therefore is the question of what humanistic leadership entails, and specifically the
characteristics of humanistic leaders. Mel
e (2016) provides some direction, stating that
“. . .humanistic leadership requires an interactive relationship and dialogue between the
leader and his or her followers and the concern of the leader for the followers’ needs and
personal growth and, at the same time, awareness of what is required for the community”
(p. 51). In other words, humanistic leadership entails interaction with and concern for
followers along with community orientation. This is in line with Pfeffer’s (1998) core
argument (based on findings from several industries) that people-oriented values and
practices are critical to organizational performance. He argues that leaders should recognize
the importance of people for organizational success, hold people-oriented values and act on
the belief that people come first. Similarly, the editors of this special issue suggest that
humanistic leaders, in accordance with the three pillars of humanistic management, (1)
respect people as holistic human beings by taking care of their own and followers’ needs and
motives, (2) constantly improve themselves and develop followers to reach their potential and
(3) recognize and account for all stakeholders’ interests while pursuing the common good.
However, research on the topic of humanistic leadership remains sparse. One qualitative case
analysis of a German firm found 11 broad characteristics of humanistic leaders, ranging from
self-reflection to individualized support, to community-building and to enabling self-
leadership (Fritz and S€orgel, 2017). In another study, Davila and Elvira (2012) suggest that a
stakeholder leadership view is consistent with the humanistic perspective in the Latin
American context where paternalistic leadership and the value of community are important.
They mention the relevance of taking a hybrid approach to leadership, exploring indigenous
practices as well as local interpretations of foreign practices. Along the same lines, this paper
strives to take a local, indigenous perspective on effective leadership in the Thai context while
at the same time using the global lens of humanistic management to understand leadership in
Thailand. Such an approach along with a primary focus on expatriates may help to develop
the construct of humanistic leadership not only within a specific country but also in a cross-
cultural context.

Methodology
Sample
Both expatriate and local Thai leaders were interviewed. For the former, interviews were
conducted in seven focus groups with 24 expatriates who held leadership positions in
Thailand and had Thai subordinates. In order to be included in the sample, all expatriates
needed to be considered leaders by recommenders.
Expatriate interviewees were found through direct contacts, local Chamber of Commerce
organizations and snowballing methods. In an effort to have generalizability, interviewees
were not limited to certain industries, functional areas or companies. All held middle or upper
leadership positions in the company. They had an average of 8 years of work experience in
Thailand and 13 years of international work experience. They were on average 44 years old,
represented 14 different nationalities and included 17 males and 7 females.
In addition to the expatriate interviews, two Thai leaders were also interviewed to get their
perspective of what leadership skills were needed in a Thai context, and to see whether the
findings from expatriate interviews fit their own experience. The first Thai leader interviewee
was a male with 15 years of corporate leadership experience and 10 years of leadership
coaching experience. The second Thai leader was a female with 12 years of leadership
experience who won a Thai leadership award in 2018.
Procedure Humanistic
Both the individual interviews with Thai leaders and the expatriate focus group interviews leadership in
had two components: an analogically based method and a semi-structured interview.
Analogically based methods help to “make the invisible visible” (Barry, 1994) through the
Thailand
creation of “physical analogs” that serve as a projection of unconscious impressions and
intuitions. Analogically based methods, also called projective techniques, have proven
beneficial in areas such as psychology, art therapy, management education and strategy
consulting (Barry, 1994; Heracleous and Jacobs, 2008; Kainzbauer and Lowe, 2018; Kuepers
and Pauleen, 2015). Such methods provide additional insight into topics that respondents
may not have considered using a typical interview format. For example, research on
organizational identity found that the use of an object-mediated inquiry process surfaced
additional identity descriptions that had not come up in previous narrative research
interviews (Oliver and Roos, 2007). Given the benefits of analogically based methods, this
technique was used to help participants visualize their subconscious perceptions (i.e. tap into
their mental images) in order to elicit rich contextual insights to complement the focus group
interviews.
Consistent with Heracleous and Jacobs (2008) and Kainzbauer and Lowe (2018), LEGO®
bricks were used as an analogical tool to tap into respondents’ perception of their roles as
leaders in Thailand. It was explained to interviewees that the use of LEGO® bricks helps to
reveal subconscious thoughts and feelings. Following this, participants did a warm-up
exercise in which they built a metaphor that captured the essence of Bangkok to them. This
allowed them to familiarize themselves with the method. Then, participants were asked to
build a three-dimensional LEGO® model to illustrate how they perceive their leadership role
in their organization. They were asked to answer to the following question: “As a leader in the
Thai context, I am like a . . .” They then explained their LEGO® creation and explored its
meaning with other focus group participants (in the case of expatriates) and the researchers.
In addition to the analogical method, a semi-structured interview format was used to ask
specific questions regarding interviewees’ experience as leaders in Thailand. Both expatriate
and local Thai leaders were asked to describe what aspects of their leadership style were
effective and not effective in Thailand. See the Appendix for the interview protocol.

Data analysis
The focus group interviews were transcribed and included photos of the LEGO® leadership
constructions. Nvivo 10 was used to code the transcripts. Data analysis procedures were
consistent with standard qualitative analytical techniques (e.g. Pratt et al., 2006; Corbin and
Strauss, 2015). Statements related to leadership behaviors were identified with open coding,
leading to first-order codes using an inductive approach. After independently developing
these codes, the authors discussed them, integrating them into second-order theoretical
categories and finally aggregating them into themes.

Results
The analogical and semi-structured interview analysis suggested five main themes to
effective leadership in Thailand: guiding, bridging, emotionally supporting, socializing and
indirectly communicating. The first three themes of guiding, bridging and supporting are
most clearly demonstrated through the LEGO® models. See Figures 1–3 for examples of these
constructions.
CCSM

Figure 1.
Guiding (a) Arrow
(b) Structure

Guiding
Guiding refers to providing direction and structure. For example, one respondent constructed
an arrow and said “I provide direction. . .I think that’s what I do: I help them think through the
issues, ask the right questions, provide some direction as to what exactly are we doing”
(Person 6). Another interviewee built a structure and explained: “. . .I see myself as the leader
there who structures his business and the people”. But also, I have built up this a little bit
higher, which then represents my role “cause in my opinion, Thai people need someone to
look up to” (Person 13). In the semi-structured interviews, a number of respondents
mentioned the need to provide guidance to Thai subordinates. One respondent said “They
[the Thais] require a lot of hand-holding” (Person 4). Another explained that she changed her
leadership style in Thailand to be “micro-management more. . .I’ve gone from. . .across
cultures, to the UK to Thailand, where I have to micromanage” (Person 3). Similarly, Person 19
explained: “They rely on me to show the road, where we are going, and. . .like in life, try to
give them the most experience that can give to them, to teach them how to behave, how to be
professional.”
Considering these points, a major role of expatriate leaders in Thailand seems to be
guiding – in other words, providing direction and structure. This was also confirmed by the
Thai leaders who emphasized the importance of providing guidance as a leader: “. . .I feel that
what they [Thais] need is a strong leader. So whatever the situation. . .I always find a
solution. . .. I need to be there to provide guidance” (Thai Leader 2). Thus, from both Thai
leader and expatriate perspectives, guidance is key to leading Thais.
 Humanistic
leadership in
Thailand

Figure 2.
Bridging
(a) Crossroads (b)
Bridge

Bridging
Bridging refers to linking between different parties. This could be between the local Thai
employees and a client, between headquarters and the subsidiary unit in Thailand or between
foreigners and Thai locals. For example, one interviewee constructed an image of a
crossroads with LEGO® bricks, seeing his role as the link between others: “In my company,
my staff always want to communicate through me. . .if. . .the staff wants to tell something to
the client, they’ll tell me and they want me to tell the client. If my staff in the technical
department wants to tell somebody [something]. . .in the editorial department, they would not
talk to each other, they would talk to me and expect me to tell them” (Person 7). Another
interviewee made a bridge with his LEGO® bricks and said:
There is a lot to say about leadership, but I feel it is like being a bridge. Because most of the time, I
always worked for international companies, with some international head of this, and they do not
understand the Thais and the Thais do not understand them. . .So it seems to be that I am always in
that type of bridging position. And just making again, and understanding my Australian colleagues
why things were like that there and explaining to my Thai staff why they have to do things in a
certain way (Person 5).
Meanwhile, another participant used the image of a mediator who needs to balance between
international headquarters, local Thai employees and local clients: “So I’m a little bit feeling as
the mediator. . .between all of them. So the buffer, to handle things and put them on the
CCSM

Figure 3.
Emotionally
supporting (a) Mother
(b) Father

reasonably correct way, reject towards the headquarter[s] what is unreasonable. . .explain to
the locals, including the clients, what is necessary” (Person 17).
As can be seen from these quotations, expatriate leaders saw their role as linking different
parties and being sure both understand each other. In other words, they engaged in bridging
behaviors. Interestingly, one of the Thai leaders also built a LEGO® bridge as a metaphor for
her role as a leader connecting different departments (e.g. HR, finance) and employees of
different nationalities in her company. She emphasized that the bridge needs a strong
foundation so everyone works together. Thus, both expatriates and local Thai leaders
converged on the importance of leaders in the Thai context bridging different parties.

Emotionally supporting
Emotionally supporting Thai subordinates was the third category found in both the
analogical and semi-structured interview methods. One respondent described her leadership
role as that of a mother, constructing an image of a mother with LEGO® bricks, explaining:
“they always need that kind of nurturing and coaching and cajoling and, and
support. . .you’re constantly the source of nutrition. . .emotional nutrition, not just
leadership, strategy and structure, but these kind of emotional things” (Person 10). She
went on to discuss the importance of emotional support in the workplace for Thais:
 The emotional welfare of people is much, much more important here than I think in the West and Humanistic
people lean on you for their emotional well-being. Whereas I think in the West, emotional well-being
tends to be our responsibility, we come to work. . .and the rest takes care of itself, or is taken care of leadership in
outside the workplace whereas here that emotional context is really high, making sure that people Thailand
get on with each other. That . . . they’re emotionally kind of happy, in the workplace (Person 10).
Another respondent described his role as that of a father, a large part of which was a heart:
I think I feel like the father of the company. . .But there is this red part [of the LEGO® construction]
because you have to be a father with a heart. . .but also the blue [LEGO® construction part]. . .
because. . .also in a way you have to be the strong guy. Yeah, so I think people will want to have a
safe environment. But always with this red part, with the heart, and the laughter, and the atmosphere
created with your heart in the company (Person 11).
In other words, although subordinates expected strength from him, they also wanted to have
someone who cared about them. The semi-structured interviews also often related to an
emotional connection. An interviewee stated emotional connection with subordinates is
important for success in Thailand “first of all by doing the emotional care, the emotional
welfare thing” (Person 12). The importance of empathy was also noted: “I think that you have
to be able to be emotionally involved and attached to people. . .empathic” (Person 11).
Similarly, when asked about skills important for Thailand, one respondent said “soft skills in
terms of empathy, ability to connect. Super important” (Person 14).
The importance of emotional support was also confirmed in the interviews with the two
Thai leaders who both emphasized the “heart” aspect of leadership. For example, one
mentioned: “If you want to win the heart of Thai people, you need to lead from the heart” (Thai
Leader 2). Another stated “If you are a very good boss, that means you have a kind heart”
(Thai Leader 1). Thus, emotional support converged as an important attribute of leaders in
Thailand, mentioned by both expatriates and local Thai leaders.

Socializing
A fourth theme that emerged was socializing with Thai subordinates as a method to motivate
employees. For example, one expatriate interviewee said:
I think [you] always have to play the game and over-the-top show you care, whereas in a Western
company you do not, you just get on with the job. Whereas here you have to spend quite a lot of time
talking to staff and looking at pictures of the kids, or doing things which probably might not do in the
West because you’re just working. It’s a different relationship and I think. . .you have to consciously
work on it. . .you have to think very consciously, spend even if it’s five minutes a day with each
person, talking about their family or what they did (Person 8).
Along similar lines, Thai Leader 2 emphasized the importance of using every opportunity to
connect with employees through “good morning, hello, small chit chat” in order to “make
them feel that you are approachable.” She also builds relationships through social activities,
which she sees as vital in Thailand. She explains:
So it’s just like. . .building the relationship through this activity which is very important. So we do
CSR activities like going to plant sea grass. . .and we organize things like health week. . .so I think
that the way that we build relationship[s] can be through the leader themselves, how they interact
with people, the activity, the culture, and the company policy. So I think those need to be together in
terms of developing that relationship. . .So the staff felt that they are cared for and not just here
working like a machine (Thai Leader 2)
Such relationship-building extended beyond the company. One expatriate interviewee
mentioned how his subordinates wished to have him highly involved in their personal lives,
which could be challenging:
CCSM Sometimes people have some expectations that sometimes they want to involve you in some private
business. You do not want to get involved, but it seems to be a part of the deal and out of the sudden
you get every weekend invitation for a wedding, a funeral, or house opening ceremony, that you
realize wow. . .I can spend my entire weekend to go from one party to the next one. So you also try to
find a personal way to be present, but still not to be present too much because, I also realized. . .it can
be very unhealthy if out of the sudden your coworker is your best friend and sometimes you have to
make tight decisions in the business. This makes it sometimes difficult. . . (Person 20).
Thai Leader 1 also mentioned similar concerns, stating “It is hard to find Thai bosses that do
not have a personal relationship with them [employees],” but also cautioning that this might
lead to complications when boundaries between professional and personal get blurred.
Despite these difficulties, participants recognized the importance of socializing given the
interconnection between private and public life by Thais. For example, to be successful in
Thailand, one respondent said it is important to recognize:
that the separation between work and personal life is much different here. And, you have to. . .pay
attention to whatever issue or problem they are facing in life. . .if you want them to work properly for
you and trust you. . .[You do this] by listening to them, talking to them, asking questions about the
things outside of work as well. Paying attention to families, or things like that. And showing them
that the family is important as well as the work (Person 18).
Thus, it appears that socializing with Thais, which includes not only asking about but also
being involved in their personal lives, is an important role for leaders.

Indirectly communicating
The final, fifth, theme concerned indirect communication. One leader noted that the Thais
have “a different communication style. A bit more polite and decent and positive” (Person 17).
Using an indirect approach to communication seemed important for expatriate leaders to
effectively get points across and avoid offending others. One respondent stated: “I learned
also to make it sound rather, very, very friendly, if I criticized. So, it’s even this, [a] lot of
smiling because otherwise they would not appreciate it” (Person 11). Similarly, another
participant mentioned it was important for him to think about what he said before saying it:
“Filtering what comes out of my mouth. . .In all honesty you’ve got to double check what
you’re going to say. . .that you’re not going to imply something or say it in the wrong way that
someone’s going to get offended” (Person 16). Along similar lines, “I know I’m in Thailand and
I have to do it this way. I’d have to say it’s probably the hardest country in Asia I’ve worked in,
and I’ve worked in about seven countries. It’s the hardest, because people can be very touchy,
even if you do not mean the wrong thing, and you are not being rude. . .[Thais] can be touchy,
more so than other countries” (Person 8).
One interviewee gave an example of a Romanian who shouted at a senior-level employee,
noting “if I were to do the same with the Thai person this would definitely lead to a lot of
difficulties. They [the Thai employee] would just resign and leave the company in the worst
case. So this is definitely something that I have changed, I really force myself to never to shout
at any time or be too pushy or aggressive” (Person 9). Yet another respondent shared, “I think
I have adapted my style here ‘cause as I’m coming from Germany, you are very
straightforward. And you have to learn how to talk around the situation” (Person 13). Dealing
with indirect communication also meant learning to read between the lines in order to
understand Thai messages that are typically not expressed explicitly. Person 17 explained
that it is important to listen to “what’s missing, instead of [listening to] what he said” and
being aware that the excuse “is only a small part of the truth.”
Given the points raised by respondents, it seems that Thais prefer an indirect
communication style, and that expatriate leaders must be careful to indirectly, politely and
caringly state issues to ensure that subordinates do not get offended or feel badly. Equally, Humanistic
expatriates have to learn to read between the lines in order not to miss crucial information. leadership in
Thai Leader 1 referred to this skill as “listening with the whole body” in order to
understand subordinates who might be too shy to say what they think. He explains: “This
Thailand
young lady is quiet, ok, so let me find out. . .we open our ears when we talk, we look in his or
hers eyes this and that, to understand them.” Thai Leader 2 emphasized that “understanding
the way that they express themselves” is a key leadership skill. She states the reason for this
relates to Thai culture: “Because with the Thai culture, we do not express what we really feel.
If the leader calls them and says, ‘um what’s the matter, is everything alright?’ and they say
‘yes everything’s fine,’ but then in the background, everything is not fine” (Thai Leader 2). Her
recommendation was for the leader to address the issue indirectly by “asking many small
questions to get to the bigger idea.” Similar to the other themes found in this study, both
expatriates and local Thai leaders had a consistent view, noting the importance of indirectly
communicating with Thai subordinates.

Discussion
Five main themes emerged from this analysis of leader roles in the Thai context: guiding,
bridging, emotionally supporting, socializing and indirectly communicating. What struck the
authors about these themes was how much they seemed to relate to each other based on
interviewees’ explanations of their leadership roles and experience managing Thais.

Links between themes

Several interviewees seemed to see links between guiding, emotionally supporting and
socializing. For example, one respondent used the metaphor of being the leader of a pack of
dogs to describe her role as a leader in Thailand, where she guides her subordinates through
support and socializing: “So it’s really like guiding, supporting, and encouraging your part of
the pack, and they do respond to you doing things like this weekend I am taking seven of
them to (location). . .So once every three months I go away for a weekend in a minibus, and
they’re happy. . .they’re very loyal and once you have their backing and loyalty I think you
have it for good; it just takes a bit of time to earn it” (Person 8). In other words, she was able to
guide Thai subordinates because she was supportive and spent time socializing with them by
doing fun activities. Another interviewee had a similar point:
My job is really investing time and my job first and foremost is to put a vision with a clear direction
for everyone and then, for them to buy in and really be engaged. My job is to spend time with every
one of them. . .the key. . .especially here, is to know them personally and connect with them at a
personal level. . .If really you manage to connect with them, they will do anything, and they are
fantastic. But the personal emotional connection is key. If we do not have it, does not work
(Person 14).
Providing a vision and direction is important, but it is necessary to have personal, emotional
relationships for employees to follow. Along the same lines, another respondent said:
I show the direction and I provide the know-how. And this part here is pulling people with me. So,
showing the direction but not showing and then sending them, pulling them with me. And, that’s the
part where I need skills like emotional intelligence, to find ways to connect with people so that they
follow me and do what they’re supposed to do in the way they’re supposed to do it (Person 12).
One respondent used the metaphor of a father to describe his leadership role, saying “. . .they
rely on me to show the road, where we are going, and. . .try to give them the most experience
that can give to them, to teach them how to behave, how to be professional. I’m also having
fun with them, like with your kids, but still have some rules in the home” (Person 19). Indeed,
CCSM across focus groups several expatriate leaders described themselves in terms of family
members. Two interviewees saw themselves as fathers, one as a mother, one as a brother and
one as an aunt. These expatriates all recognized the importance of developing personal,
emotional and social relationships in order to effectively guide subordinates in the Thai
context. This aspect was also confirmed by Thai Leader 2, who, when presented with
expatriate leader findings, pointed to the theme of “emotionally supporting” and said:
“guiding is about this as well.” She went on to emphasize that emotional support when
guiding is very important and is often missing in the Western delegating leadership style. She
states:
. . .Westerners usually do, like ‘ok you do this, this, this, go away and do it,’ but for the Thais, they
need guidance along the way and [when] they get stuck, they will not come to you, to the leader, but
the guiding is when the leader actually spend[s] time with them. . .helping them to deal with that
situation in order for them to get the work done. . .[The leader asks] ‘how are you doing? Do you need
support in any way?’ [and then the subordinate would respond] “Oh I need a little bit.” “Oh okay.”
And then they [subordinates] go away, so it’s not one time like delegating but, you know, that
continuously guiding. . .It [guiding and emotionally supporting] comes together because people,
when Thai people are under pressure in their work and there’s no way out, and they do not feel that
the leader is approachable, the end result is that they will leave (Thai Leader 2).
In other words, per Thai Leader 2, guidance from the leader includes both task-related and
emotional support. Leaders are expected to spend time with Thai subordinates to help them
complete their tasks and guide them, but also to show continuous emotional support for them.
Socializing and indirect communication were linked as well. For example, one
interviewee said:
I think if sometimes you face an issue with people in your office, and you just try to stand still and do
nothing for a certain time, things get solved. Very often we come as foreigners and then we go. . .the
very straight way. . .[This] is very often wrong. They told me, “Person 13, let us do it the Thai
way”. . .[This] means they go out or we should go for singing karaoke together. Teams come
together, they drink, they sing, they’re happy. Next week in the office, everything is solved. That’s
something [that]. . .was difficult for me to understand, but if there’s a problem, I’m actually not
supposed to talk about it, wait, do something around it. . .outside of the office somewhere, and then
the Thai style starts, and we connect again. . ..every month one time we went out for family karaoke
singing all together, and the teams melted together, and problems were all solved without addressing
them directly (Person 13).
In other words, problems at work were solved indirectly through socializing outside of the
office with fun activities. Instead of talking about the issues, the issues were resolved
indirectly.
There also were links between bridging and indirect communication. For example, one
interviewee saw his role as a translator between headquarters and Thai subordinates: “I see
myself as kind of a more translator, so I try to translate all of these rigid harsh things to Thai,
so they are not completely frustrated and that they know what they should do. . .So this is
what I see, I just try to. . .communicate it to their side. . .without push push push” (Person 9).
In other words, to be an effective bridge between parties, it was necessary to soften
statements so that the Thais would follow directives. Along similar lines, one participant
constructed a LEGO® dome to describe her role as a leader in Thailand. She saw her role as
bridging different parties using culturally appropriate methods, saying
I am kind of the guard at the door with a baseball bat, between the staff and the owners to protect
them, to support them. Because of the cultural hierarchy of not being able to say no to someone above
you or share your honest opinion, I am that middle person that relays the message, a little bit like the
bridge. But also the dome comes into it because I have to be all things to all people. So I have to be
 strong, and I have to be a leader, and I have to be a mom, and I have to be funny, and I have to be Humanistic
gentle when I want to slap you (Person 3).
leadership in
In other words, she supports and protects her subordinates by sending messages between Thailand
owners and staff in such a way that the staff can handle it – presumably an indirect fashion –
providing what the staff need in terms of guidance (“be a leader”) and emotional support (“be
a mom. . .be gentle”). Thus, bridging, indirectly communicating, guiding and emotionally
supporting seem to be related.

An indigenous interpretation of the themes and linkages

Considering the linkages between the themes, the typical Western logic that seeks to isolate
distinctive objectives from their context and assign them to categories did not seem to hold.
Therefore, results are interpreted in line with Asian holistic thinking (Nisbett et al., 2001)
where reality is perceived as a meaningful whole with interdependencies and relations among
objects and events.
Asian thought depends far less on categories, formal logic or isolated objects. Rather, it
pays attention to the entire field. Nisbett et al. (2001) use the contrast between Chinese
traditional medicine and Western surgery to distinguish Asian holistic thinking from
Western analytical thinking: the former focuses on balance and energy flow in the entire body
whereas the latter uses an isolated focus on one organ. The term “holistic” from a Thai
Buddhist perspective means: “. . .to recognize that we are interrelated and everything has
meaning” (Hutanuwatr and Manivannan, 2005, p. 86). In Buddhist literature, this is called
“inter-dependent co-arising,” or simply “interbeing,” a term coined by Vietnamese Buddhist
monk Thich Nhat Hanh who explains that “things do not exist separately and outside each
other. In reality, things exist inside each other and with each other” (Khisty, 2006, p. 301). The
cultural psychology literature has linked the tendency of holistic thinking to the stronger
emphasis on social relationships in collectivistic Asian cultures. While Western
individualistic cultures tend to see themselves as independent from others and therefore
decontextualize information processing, collectivistic Asian cultures tend to see themselves
as interdependent and therefore pay more attention to context when processing information
(Buchtel and Norenzayan, 2009).
Asian reasoning is dialectic: it embeds thoughts in their appropriate context and seeks a
middle way between seemingly opposing concepts to understand their connection
(Andriessen and van den Boom, 2007). The results are therefore not interpreted as
independent categories that carry meaning in themselves, but rather as interconnected,
overlapping and relationally linked. Based on this paper’s findings, it seems that guiding,
bridging, emotionally supporting, socializing and indirectly communicating are linked in a
Thai leadership context. Thus, while Westerners may wish to split findings into separate
categories such as task-orientation and relationship-orientation (House and Aditya, 1997), in
reality, particularly from a Thai perspective, these categories are interconnected and
integrated holistically. This suggests that broader, more holistic conceptualizations of
leadership may be important in the Thai context.
In addition, this study suggests that expatriate leaders in Thailand need to be aware of
indigenous, country-specific characteristics. Perhaps most fundamentally, Buddhist values
seem to play a role in a Thai organizational context (Niffenegger et al., 2006). Buddhism is a
central element of Thai identity and as such shapes Thai beliefs and behavior (Browell, 2000;
Jackson, 2002; Mulder, 2000). Buddhist morality focuses on balance and being in harmony
with the law of nature, which is particularly important given the interdependence of all things
(King, 2002). Pre-eminent Thai scholar-monk Prayudh Payutto explains: “You should know
how to live in harmony with nature by acting virtuously: with metta – love and good
intentions for others; karuna – helpful intentions; mudita – joy in the success of others;
CCSM upekkha – equanimity and even-mindedness. . .; [and] samaggi – unity and
cooperation. . .This is the way to live in harmony with nature. . .” (Payutto, 1995, pp. 72–
74, cited in King, 2002, p. 282). Leadership in Thailand is therefore often associated with
benevolence and kindness.
The notion of the leader as a kind and caring mentor can be linked to the Buddhist
concepts of goodwill (metta) and compassion (karuna), which represent admired qualities in
Thai leaders (Kemavuthanon and Duberley, 2009). This was also reflected in the GLOBE
study, where the South Asian cluster showed the strongest preference for “humane leaders”
(characterized as compassionate, generous, patient and modest) compared to all other
regional clusters (House et al., 2004). Related, baramee (personal power derived from respect,
also referred to as accumulated goodness) is one of the most admired attributes of leaders in
the Thai context (Persons, 2016). Leaders who act selflessly, show kindness and have the
common good in mind gradually build up baramee over time (Holmes and Tangtongtavy,
2003). The strong Thai emphasis on caring relationships is also demonstrated in numerous
expressions in the Thai language, which uses the word jai (translated as “heart”) as a
metaphor. Leaders in the Thai context need to hen jai (see into the heart) of their subordinates
and recognize their subordinates’ tendency to be kreng jai (considerate, not wanting to cause
discomfort). Thai subordinates would often not directly ask for help (for fear of losing face)
but would expect their leader to know when help is needed (Kainzbauer, 2013). These
concepts relate to being emotionally supportive and indirectly communicating with
subordinates.
Being emotionally supportive entails showing goodwill, compassion and caring. Leaders
who listen and try to help their subordinates even in personal matters demonstrate their
compassion. Similarly, by being aware of their subordinates’ needs through hen jai, they can
demonstrate they care and be supportive of subordinates’ needs. This is consistent with
humanistic management’s concern for people, where one is caring and benevolent in dealing
with others (Mel
e, 2016; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Along the same lines, the Buddhist
methods of living in harmony, in particular samaggi and karuna, fit with humanism’s
emphasis on cooperation and fostering the growth of others (Mel
e, 2003). Apart from links to
Buddhism, the finding of emotionally supportive leadership behavior reflects the Thai
tendency of holistic thinking, where leaders are not only responsible for engaging with
subordinates in work-related activities but also in their personal lives. Business and personal
life are not seen as separate categories, but rather as a holistic whole.
Findings also suggest that one way to show concern for others in the Thai context is by
engaging in indirect communication, allowing subordinates to save face by recognizing when
issues arise and responding in a culturally appropriate manner. Face-saving in part through
avoiding direct confrontation is important in Thai culture (Selvarajah et al., 2013). Such
indirect communication fits with Hall’s (1976) concept of a high context culture, where
implicit and nonverbal communication are highly important. From a humanistic leadership
perspective, this indirect communication could be viewed as a way to foster long-term
relationships (Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Further, by responding in a face-saving way,
leaders are providing dignity to subordinates, showing they are worthy of respect, which is
important in humanistic management (Mel
e, 2016).
In addition to benevolence and kindness, respect for hierarchy and seniority is strong in
Thailand (Holmes and Tangtongtavy, 2003; Niffenegger et al., 2006). In different studies of
culture including those of Hofstede (1980), GLOBE (House et al., 2004) and the Schwartz Value
Survey (Schwartz, 1994), Thailand has been found to be a hierarchical, high power distance
society. Linked to the Buddhist notion of reincarnation, one’s seniority and power may be due
to merit accumulated in a previous life (Holmes and Tangtongtavy, 2003). Given their higher
status due to merit, Thais may like to see their leader as a teacher or coach who guides them.
This is consistent with this study’s finding of guiding being a leadership behavior in
Thailand. The Thai concepts of phradet and phrakhun exemplify the balance of guiding and Humanistic
caring. Phradet refers to exercising the legitimate power of a leader in taking the lead and leadership in
making decisions, while phrakhun refers to the benevolent side of leadership where the leader
is expected to protect and care for subordinates (similar to the role of a father in a family)
Thailand
(Holmes and Tangtongtavy, 2003). Thus, leading and caring are closely linked in the Thai
context, consistent with Thai Leader 2’s point that guiding includes not only directing but
also supporting and caring for subordinates. These Thai concepts relate to this study’s
findings of both guiding and emotionally supporting as leadership behaviors. Further, the
balance of phradet and phrakhun, not to mention Thai Leader 2’s comment about the close
relationship between guiding and supporting, further suggest the holistic nature of this
study’s findings.
Another Thai-specific value is sanuk (translated as fun). Sanuk, defined by Mulder (2000,
p. 54) as the Thai tendency to “look for the enjoyable and amusing side of life,” is valued both
in and out of the workplace in Thailand. The interviews in this study pointed to the
importance of socializing and having fun with subordinates. For example, respondents
mentioned the need to go out with subordinates, travel to different places with them, have fun
with them and socialize with them about their personal lives. It could also be viewed as
relating to relatively high femininity scores, where there is a preference for “working to live”
rather than “living to work” (Hofstede, 1980; Swierczek and Onishi, 2003). This is consistent
with humanism’s recognition of sociability and relationships with others being important to
flourish (Mel
e, 2016; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010).

Humanistic leadership in Thailand

While it is helpful to explore leadership with an indigenous lens, it can also be beneficial to see
how local practices may fit in a more global, etic context. Humanistic leadership practices
seem to be key to being effective in Thailand. As mentioned in the introduction and literature
review sections of this paper, humanistic leadership, with its roots in humanistic
management, is fundamentally concerned with humanity. It emphasizes respecting and
relating to people holistically as unique individuals and developing them, and fostering a
sense of community that involves multiple stakeholders (Mel
e, 2003, 2013, 2016; Pirson and
Lawrence, 2010). The findings of this study match these ideas closely. Each of the five themes
and their links to humanistic leadership are described below.
By emotionally supporting their subordinates, leaders show concern for them as
individual, holistic persons, trying to be sensitive to individuals’ needs (Acevedo, 2012; Fritz
and S€orgel, 2017; Mel
e, 2003). Instead of simply seeing employees as a means to an end,
effective leaders in Thailand recognize the importance of individuals as people, as well as
their uniqueness (Mel
e, 2016; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). They exhibit humanistic leader
characteristics of being sensitive to others’ needs and emotions, providing individualized
support (Fritz and S€orgel, 2017). This was directly stated by the Thai leaders who were
interviewed. Thai Leader 1 said, “The most important thing is to put people in the center.”
Thai Leader 2 stated, “I think for me, it’s human-oriented leadership.” She explained: “You
need to have a relationship with your team, not a leader who just order[s] them to do
things. . .seeing them as a human, not a machine, not a piece within the organization” (Thai
Leader 2). These quotes suggest that Thai leaders recognize and adopt ideas of humanistic
leadership. They put people first (Pfeffer, 1998). While not directly stated, expatriates in the
study also seem to follow such humanistic practices. For example, one expatriate mentioned,
“I think it’s extremely nice that everyone is always helping everyone. Everyone is sharing. . .I
think it’s a beautiful way of living not to be so individualist and think so much about yourself,
and think more about ‘us’. . .caring about your neighbors, caring about your colleagues, care,
really caring about them” (Person 22). The notion of caring for others can be considered
CCSM humanistic given it entails support of and sensitivity toward others, as well as seeing people
not only in terms of how they can benefit the company (Fritz and S€orgel, 2017; Mel
e, 2016;
Pirson and Lawrence, 2010).
The use of indirect communication, particularly by expatriates for whom this is not
typical, demonstrates not only cultural awareness but also adaptation. These leaders realize
that their subordinates prefer to interact in an indirect fashion, and therefore relate to them
appropriately. For example, Person 23 mentioned “I’m very results driven. . .But I think the
way I do it has changed here, my communication is softer than it was, it’s more careful, it’s
more calm. I go an extra mile to recognize my people. . .to develop my people. . .to keep my
temper. I lose it every two years and I really regret it.” Through such behaviors, these leaders
adopt humanistic practices in terms of recognizing the importance of relationships, being
sensitive to others and their cultural background and facilitating others’ personal growth
(Fritz and S€orgel, 2017; Mel
e, 2016; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). This was also shown in
bridging, whereby leaders tried to sensitively communicate information between parties.
This could be viewed as being related to humanistic practices of fostering dialogue between
stakeholders as well as building and maintaining long-term relationships (Pirson and
Lawrence, 2010). It also fits with Pfeffer’s (1998) view that information sharing is a person-
oriented work practice.
Socializing was also found to be vital for leading in Thailand, which fits humanism’s focus
on relationships (Mel
e, 2003; Pirson, 2017; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Through socializing,
leaders not only facilitated relationships but also seemed to foster a sense of social
community in the firm and among followers (Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Further, the
plethora of metaphors that related to family in this study fit well with Mel
e’s (2003) point that
humanistic management – the basis for humanistic leadership – entails a bond between
members of a community that mirrors familial relationships.
The results of this study also suggest that these family-style bonds can entail guiding,
particularly with regard to developing others. For example, one interviewee mentioned that
her Thai subordinates saw her as an aunt since she protected and helped to develop them,
which led to recognition by headquarters: “They told me you are like an aunt to us, you take
care of us, you defend us, you support so that we. . .get. . .good developments, that we [then]
get a good image in towards the headquarters, so you are like an aunt to us” (Person 22). This
fits with the humanistic principle of helping others develop and grow (Mel
e, 2016). In addition,
guiding was suggested to require individuation. For example, Thai Leader 2 said “the
foundation of my leadership is human understanding. . .understanding that each human
being is unique and that they have different motive[s], different drivers, different needs. I
think that’s the foundation of my leadership because if I’m the leader and I do not understand
my people and then I do not use the right approach to lead them or to communicate, then I’m
not a very good leader.” She recognized that employees’ different needs and motivations were
important for leading, or guiding, them. This is consistent with Mel
e’s (2016) points about
humanistic management including an awareness of the uniqueness of each individual. It also
fits humanistic leadership’s view that it is important to take care of followers’ needs and to
provide individualized support (Fritz and S€orgel, 2017).
In sum, based on the findings of this study, humanistic leadership is fundamental to
leading in Thailand. Consistent with humanism, Thais desire leaders to have a long-term
relational orientation whereby leaders demonstrate sensitivity to individual needs and
concerns of subordinates and try to build community within the organization (Pirson and
Lawrence, 2010). That being said, a culturally sensitive indigenous approach to humanistic
leadership is also needed. The specific behaviors of guiding, bridging, emotionally
supporting, socializing and indirectly communicating are ways to demonstrate humanistic
leadership in a Thai context. Considering that these particular behaviors have not been
specified in the humanistic literature (e.g. Mel
e, 2009, 2016; Pirson, 2017; Pirson and Humanistic
Lawrence, 2010), this suggests that local approaches to humanistic leadership may be vital. leadership in
Furthermore, some humanistic principles seem at odds with a cross-cultural
perspective. For example, humanism has an individual orientation, with some arguing
Thailand
it is “hostile to any form of collectivism” in which the group is favored over the individual
(Pirson and Lawrence, 2010, p. 554). Clearly, such an attitude would need to be
reconsidered in collectivistic cultures, likely in favor of a more local approach to
humanistic leadership. Similarly, humanistic management’s emphasis on participative
leadership, autonomy and delegation over top-down decision-making (Arnaud and
Wasieleski, 2014; Mel
e, 2013; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010) may need to be adapted to
hierarchical, high power distance cultures. This does not, however, mean that humanistic
leadership cannot be applied across cultures. As Dierksmeier (2016) intimates, similar to
the UN’s declaration of human rights, the underlying principles of humanism may be
universal, but some aspects may be prioritized or emphasized more in some cultures than
others. As mentioned earlier, in a Thai context, the Buddhist values of goodwill and
compassion fit with humanism’s concern for people, while the Thai value of fun is
consistent with the relational focus where organizations are social phenomena (Pirson and
Lawrence, 2010). Given Thai culture, one might expect these aspects to be emphasized
more than others in Thailand, and the findings point to behavioral ways to show
humanistic leadership in this cultural context. This is unlikely to hold everywhere.
Consistent with leadership research showing that cultures may use different behaviors to
show the same leadership style (Den Hartog et al., 1999), the ways in which humanistic
principles are demonstrated may vary across cultures. Humanistic leaders, therefore, are
likely conscious of the multiple needs of individuals, which are shaped by culture. This
notion is consistent with the work on global leadership that emphasizes the importance of
intercultural competence (Bird et al., 2010).
One interesting observation was that some expatriate leaders mentioned the importance
of engaging in behaviors such as emotionally supporting, socializing with and indirectly
communicating with subordinates, yet still seemed focused on the economistic view. For
example, Person 8 explained that she engaged in these practices to increase Thais’
productivity: “I think [you] always have to play the game and over-the-top show you care,
whereas in a Western company you do not, you just get on with the job. . .I do not really want
to spend the time doing it, [but I’m] trying to just a few minutes because that’s what they
like. . .that means you care. But at the end of the day I get more work out of them. . .” While
these leaders engaged in such humanistic practices, it seems their mindset was not wholly
humanistic. They seem to focus more on the final “organizational success” outcome, adopting
a people-centered approach to achieve this (Pfeffer, 1998). Given the factors associated with
effective leadership of Thais, this suggests that, at least in Thailand, humanistic leadership is
an expectation. For those concerned with humanity and who believe that such a long-term
humanistic perspective is better for the world, this is heartening. It also suggests that cultures
holding an economistic view may benefit from adopting humanistic principles.

Implications for future research

The findings provide evidence that leadership research in an international context benefits
from considering both more etic, global perspectives, and the local context. Humanistic
leadership appears to be an etic concept, applicable to other contexts – in this study, Thailand.
Yet, that being said, given the way in which such humanistic practices occurred in Thailand
(e.g. extensive socializing, indirectly communicating) and that several expatriates mentioned
the challenges of adapting to the Thai setting, humanistic leadership likely manifests itself in
different ways across cultures. Similar to research on global leadership that highlights
CCSM generalizable skills and capabilities related to intercultural competence such as adapting to
different contexts (e.g. Bird et al., 2010), it seems that a local approach to etic concepts may be
useful. Future research could benefit from exploring how concepts such as humanistic
leadership are applied in different country contexts. Along the same lines, researchers may
wish to explore potential areas of generalizability across country contexts. It also may be
beneficial to adopt an emic lens, exploring whether there are certain country-specific tools or
concepts that are vital for leaders to be aware of to effectively lead in a particular country.
Furthermore, if the general concept of humanistic leadership holds across multiple countries,
as might be expected given that concepts such as human dignity exist not only in Western
but also African and Asian philosophies (Dierskmeier, 2016), it may be beneficial to develop a
comprehensive model that balances the local manifestations of humanistic leadership with a
more global understanding of its bases. Research on humanistic leadership as a whole is
nascent, so better differentiating this concept from others and clearly stating its dimensions
and scope are other areas for future research.
In addition to further developing work on humanistic leadership, researchers may benefit
from exploring links between different perspectives on leadership. In this study, in addition to
country-specific cultural values, Asian holistic thinking (e.g. Nisbett et al., 2001) fit the
findings well. Considering the way in which respondents discussed their leadership roles, the
five themes appear to be viewed as interrelated in a Thai context. This suggests that future
research on leadership may benefit from considering alternative perspectives on leadership
styles. The relationships between different facets could be explored further, for example
considering whether all aspects are mutually supportive. Perhaps an integrative model could
be developed that draws upon a holistic perspective to link different views of leadership. Emic
perspectives on leadership may also be worthwhile to explore, as this could provide
additional insight into how views of leadership vary by context, as well as how they may
relate to etic concepts. Furthermore, considering research on intercultural dynamics (e.g. Liu
et al., 2018; Shaw, 1990), the interrelationship between leaders and followers of different
cultures and their effect on leadership could be explored further.

Implications for practice

The findings suggest that those working in the Thai context would benefit from adopting
humanistic leadership practices applicable in Thailand. Specifically, effective leaders engage in
five main activities: guiding, bridging, emotionally supporting, socializing and indirectly
communicating. Further, leaders should recognize that all five aspects are important and relate
to each other – leaders cannot simply focus on one and assume that subordinates will follow
them. All are needed to demonstrate caring for subordinates as whole, unique persons; a focus
on community; and the betterment of others rather than only profit (Mel
e, 2003, 2016; Pirson,
2017; Pirson and Lawrence, 2010). Further, companies searching for expatriate or local leaders
in Thailand may find it beneficial to consider these types of activities. Leaders in Thailand are
likely to be more successful if they have these characteristics. Human resource departments
may find it helpful to focus on these five areas for talent recruitment, selection and development.
In addition, results suggest that expatriate leaders need to balance the “global” and “local”
aspects of leadership. While some global leadership factors such as relationship management
are important (Bird et al., 2010), certain facets of this, such as emotionally supporting,
socializing and indirectly communicating with others may be particularly vital in the Thai
context. As such, expatriate leaders may wish to consider the local context, but also keep global
leadership skills in mind. It also can be beneficial to recognize when which skills are needed, and
whether it makes sense to adapt. Indeed, as one of the interviewees noted “The question of why
are foreigners somehow successful here? I think the piano we play is a bit larger than some of
our local colleagues, because we can decide whether we want to obey by these rules or not”
(Person 5). Thus, although it was found that in general, expatriate leaders who adapted to the
local environment by engaging in the five activities were effective, these leaders could at times Humanistic
accomplish goals through local, and at times through global, methods. Again, adopting a leadership in
humanistic leadership approach, but using local practices to demonstrate this, may be helpful.
Thailand
Limitations
As this project was exploratory in nature, there are several limitations. Perhaps most obvious,
the sample only included 24 expatriate leaders, with findings corroborated by two local Thai
leaders. Clearly, a larger sample size would be beneficial for generalizability purposes. The
sample is also limited in that it only included leaders – not their subordinates. Future research
would benefit from interviewing Thai subordinates regarding their perception of factors
associated with effectiveness of expatriate and local leaders. Related, considering work on
intercultural dynamics (e.g. Liu et al., 2018; Shaw, 1990), it may be beneficial to conduct
research on dyads to see how the relationship between leaders and followers influences leader
behaviors, as well as whether other leadership behaviors arise. Another limitation is this
paper’s focus on the Thai context. Although this was done intentionally to obtain an
indigenous perspective on leadership and can be useful to see whether and how humanistic
leadership holds in a local context, future research would benefit from examining additional
country contexts to determine the extent to which humanistic leadership and its
manifestations fit different local contexts.

References
Acevedo, A. (2012), “Personalist business ethics and humanistic management: insights from Jacques
Maritain”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 197-219.
Andriessen, D. and van den Boom, M. (2007), “East is East, and West is West, and (n)ever its
intellectual capital shall meet”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 641-652.
Arnaud, S. and Wasieleski, D. (2014), “Corporate humanistic responsibility: social performance through
managerial discretion of the HRM”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 313-334.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), “Leadership: current theories, research, and
future directions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.
Barry, D. (1994), “Making the invisible visible: using analogically-based methods to surface unconscious
organizational processes”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 37-47.
Bass, B. (1996), “Is there universality in the full range model of leadership?”, International Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 731-761.
Bass, B. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M.J. and Oddou, G. (2010), “Defining the content domain of
intercultural competence for global leaders”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 810-828.
Browell, S. (2000), “The land of smiles’: people issues in Thailand”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 109-119.
Buchtel, E.E. and Norenzayan, A. (2009), “Thinking across cultures: implications for dual processes”,
in Evans, J.S.B.T. and Frankish, K. (Eds), In Two Minds: Dual Processes and beyond, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 217-238.
Chai, D., Jeong, S., Kim, J., Kim, S. and Hamlin, R. (2016), “Perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness in a Korean context: an indigenous qualitative study”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 789-820.
Clegg, B. and Gray, S. (2002), “Australian expatriates in Thailand: some insights for expatriate
management policies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 598-623.
CCSM Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Davila, A. and Elvira, M. (2012), “Humanistic leadership: lessons from Latin America”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 548-554.
Den Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. and Dorfman, P. (1999), “Culture specific and cross-
culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational
leadership universally endorsed?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-256.
Dickson, M., Casta~no, N., Magomaeva, A. and den Hartog, D. (2012), “Conceptualizing leadership
across cultures”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 483-492.
Dierksmeier, C. (2016), “What is ‘humanistic’ about humanistic management?”, Humanistic
Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W., L., Meuser, J.D., Liden, R.C. and Hu, J. (2014), “Leadership theory
and research in the new millennium: current theoretical trends and changing perspectives”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 36-62.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R. (2012), “GLOBE: a twenty year journey into
the intriguing world of culture and leadership”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 504-518.
Fr
emeaux, S. and Michaelson, G. (2017), “The common good of the firm and humanistic management: conscious
capitalism and economy of communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 4, pp. 701-709.
Fritz, S. and S€orgel, P. (2017), “Recentering leadership around the human person – introducing a
framework for humanistic leadership”, Master’s Thesis, J€onk€oping University: International
Business School, J€onk€oping, available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43ca/
74ed7645a9399f22a46bd733c3b47f465360.pdf.
Hall, E. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Harzing, A.-W. (2001), “Of bears, bumble-bees, and spiders: the role of expatriates in controlling
foreign subsidiaries”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 366-379.
Heizmann, H., Fee, A. and Gray, S. (2018), “Intercultural knowledge sharing between expatriates and
host-country nationals in Vietnam: a practice-based study of communicative relations and
power dynamics”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C.D. (2008), “Understanding organizations through embodied metaphors”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45-78.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Holmes, H. and Tangtongtavy, S. (2003), Working with the Thais: A Guide to Managing in Thailand,
White Lotus, Bangkok.
House, R. and Aditya, R. (1997), “The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 409-473.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership and
Organizations: The GLOBE Studies of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hutanuwatr, P. and Manivannan, R. (2005), The Asian Future: Dialogues for Change, Vol. 1, Zed
Books, New York, NY.
Jackson, P.A. (2002), “Thai-Buddhist identity: debates on the Traiphum Phra Ruang”, in Reynolds, C.J.
(Ed.), National Identity and its Defenders, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, pp. 155-188.
Kainzbauer, A. (2013), “Manager-subordinate trust relationships in Thailand”, in Cardona, P. and Morley,
M.J. (Eds), Manager Subordinate Trust – A Global Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 215-233.
Kainzbauer, A. and Lowe, S. (2018), “Embodied realism by design in Thai management education”,
International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 281-291.
Kemavuthanon, S. and Duberley, J. (2009), “A Buddhist view of leadership: the case of the OTOP
project”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 737-758.
Khisty, C.J. (2006), “Meditations on systems thinking, spiritual systems, and deep ecology”, Systemic Humanistic
Practice and Action Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 295-307.
leadership in
King, S.B. (2002), “From is to ought: natural law in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Phra Prayudh Payutto”,
Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 275-293.
Thailand
Kuepers, W. and Pauleen, D. (2015), “Learning wisdom: embodied and artful approaches to
management education”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 493-500.
Liu, L., Adair, W., Tjosvold, D. and Poliakova, E. (2018), “Understanding intercultural dynamics:
insights from competition and cooperation in complex contexts”, Cross Cultural and Strategic
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 2-31.
Maak, T. and Pless, N. (2009), “Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing humanism on a
global scale”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 537-550.
Mea, W. and Sims, R. (2019), “Human dignity-centered business ethics: a conceptual framework for
business leaders”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 160 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Mel
e, D. (2003), “The challenge of humanistic management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 77-88.
Mel
e, D. (2009), “Editorial introduction: towards a more humanistic management”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 413-416.
Mel
e, D. (2013), “Antecedents and current situation of humanistic management”, African Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 52-61.
Mel
e, D. (2016), “Understanding humanistic management”, Humanistic Management Journal, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Mel
e, D., Argando~na, A. and Sanchez-Runde, C. (2011), “Facing the crisis: toward a new humanistic
synthesis for business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Mendenhall, M.. (2006), “The elusive, yet critical challenge of developing global leaders”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 422-429.
Mulder, N. (2000), Inside Thai Society – Religion, Everyday Life, Change, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.
Niffenegger, P., Kulvivat, S. and Engchanil, N. (2006), “Conflicting cultural imperatives in modern
Thailand: global perspectives”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 403-420.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A. (2001), “Culture and systems of thought: holistic
versus analytic cognition”, Psychological Review, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 291-310.
Oliver, D. and Roos, J. (2007), “Beyond text: constructing organizational identity”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 342-358.
Osland, J., Bird, A. and Mendenhall, M. (2012), “Developing global mindset and global leadership
capabilities”, in Stahl, G., Bj€orkman, I. and Morris, S. (Eds), Handbook of Research in
International Human Resource Management, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton,
MA, pp. 227-259.
Payutto, P. (1995), Buddhadhamma: Natural Laws and Values for Life, translated by G.A. Olson, State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Persons, L.S. (2016), The Way Thais Lead. Face as Social Capital, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai.
Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Pirson, M. (2017), Humanistic Management: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Pirson, M. and Lawrence, P. (2010), “Humanism in business – towards a paradigm shift?”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 553-565.
Pratt, M., Rockmann, K. and Kaufmann, J. (2006), “Constructing professional identity: the role of work
and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 235-262.
CCSM Reiche, S., Harzing, A.-W. and Kraimer, M. (2009), “The role of international assignees’ social capital in
creating inter-unit intellectual capital: a cross-level model”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 509-526.
Schwartz, S. (1994), “Beyond individualism-collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values”, in Kim, U.,
Triandis, H., Ka giçibaşi, C., Choi, S.-C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications, Sage Publications, London, pp. 85-119.
Selvarajah, C., Meyer, D. and Donovan, J. (2013), “Cultural context and its influence on managerial
leadership in Thailand”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 356-380.
Sharma, R. (2019), “Evolving a model of sustainable leadership: an ex-post facto research”, Vision,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 152-169.
Shaw, J. (1990), “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 626-645.
Spitzeck, H. (2011), “An integrated model of humanistic management”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Spitzeck, H., Pirson, M., Amann, W., Khan, S. and von Kimakowitz, E. (Eds) (2009), Humanism in
Business, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Steers, R., Sanchez-Runde, C. and Nardon, L. (2012), “Leadership in a global context: new directions in
research and theory development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 479-482.
Swierczek, F. and Onishi, J. (2003), “Culture and conflict: Japanese managers and Thai subordinates”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Nos 1-2, pp. 187-210.
Tahir, R. (2018), “Expanding horizons and expatriate adjustment: perceptions of Western expatriate
managers in multinational companies in the United Arab Emirates”, Cross Cultural and
Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 401-424.
Takahashi, K., Ishikawa, J. and Kanai, T. (2012), “Qualitative and quantitative studies of leadership in
multinational settings: meta-analytic and cross-cultural reviews”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 530-538.
Takeuchi, C., Tesluk, P., Yun, S. and Lepak, D. (2005), “An integrative view of international
experience”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Tsai, C.-J., Carr, C., Qiao, K. and Supprakit, S. (2019), “Modes of cross-cultural leadership adjustment:
adapting leadership to meet local conditions and/or changing followers to match personal
requirements?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1477-1504.
von Kimakowitz, E., Pirson, M., Spitzeck, H., Dierksmeier, C. and Amann, W. (2011), Humanistic
Management in Practice, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Zhang, X., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Li, L., Xu, L., Cao, C., Li, G., Ma, L. and Ge, J. (2012), “Understanding
indigenous leadership research: explication and Chinese examples”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1063-1079.
Zhu, J., Song, L., Zhu, L. and Johnson, R. (2019), “Visualizing the landscape and evolution of leadership
research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 215-232.

Appendix
Interview protocol for expatriate leaders

Introduction
Thank you all for coming to be a part of this study. We really appreciate you taking the time to
participate.
As you know, we are interested in leadership, as well as expatriate experiences, so we would like to
hear about your experiences.
 First, let’s go around the room and briefly introduce ourselves – name, company, where we’re from Humanistic
originally, how many years in Thailand.
Next, let’s get you to reflect about your leadership role in a Thai context. leadership in
Thailand
Lego exercise (analogical method)
[Explain use of legos:] Legos help us tap into our subconscious thoughts and feelings. Artistic skill is not
important. [Show an example of a lego model with interpretation]
[Warm-up exercise:] Think of a metaphor that captures the essence of Bangkok. “Bangkok is
like . . .” I’ll give you a few minutes to do this. Then, we’ll go around and talk about what we built.
[Give them time to build, then ask each person about his/her model]
Now coming to the main focus of our project. Think about how you lead the Thai people in your unit
here in Thailand. With this in mind, use the legos to show your leadership role. How do you see your role
as a leader in Thailand? “I am like . . .”
[Give them time to do this, then ask each person about his/her model]
Now let’s talk a bit more about your experiences.

Semi-Structured Interview:
(1) Describe a leadership situation that surprised you in Thailand. How did you handle it?
(2) Can you share with us a situation where you were trying to lead Thais and it did not work? What
went wrong?
 Reflecting on this experience, what would work better?
(3) Do you think that your leadership style has changed from before you came to Thailand? (Have
you changed how you work with subordinates?)
 If so, how? If not, why not?
(4) What are some aspects about your leadership style that are effective in Thailand? (What works
for getting things done here?)
(5) What are some aspects of your leadership style that are less effective in Thailand? Is there
something that does not work well when leading here?
(6) Do you think your Thai subordinates trust you? How do you know? (what are signs of trust)
 How do you build trust in Thailand?
(7) What kind of mindset is helpful for being successful in Thailand? (Which personal attributes
help you to be successful here? Which ones would you like to have in addition?)
(8) What have you learned from Thai culture/working in Thailand that you find useful for yourself
(even beyond the Thai context)?
(9) How much does organizational culture (versus local culture influence) your leadership
behavior?

Corresponding author
Astrid Kainzbauer can be contacted at: astrid.kai@mahidol.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com