How Finnish and Filipino University Students in Business Studies Perceive Leaders Based On Visual Cues

International Studies of Management & Organization
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mimo20
How Finnish and Filipino university students in

business studies perceive leaders based on visual
cues
Jari Martikainen & Tiffany A. Tan
To cite this article: Jari Martikainen & Tiffany A. Tan (2023) How Finnish and Filipino university
students in business studies perceive leaders based on visual cues, International Studies of
Management & Organization, 53:3, 148-166, DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2023.2238459
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2238459
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 10 Aug 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 209
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mimo20
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION
2023, VOL. 53, NO. 3, 148–166
https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2238459
How Finnish and Filipino university students in business

studies perceive leaders based on visual cues
Jari Martikainena and Tiffany A. Tanb
a
Department of Social Sciences, Ita-Suomen yliopisto - Kuopion kampus, Kuopio, Finland; bSchool of
Management, University of the Philippines Cebu, Cebu, Philippines
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article sets out to examine cultural differences in perceiving leaders’ Finland; leadership;
visual non-verbal behavior. It examines and compares how business multicultural organizations;
students at universities in Finland and the Philippines perceive business nonverbal behavior; person
perception; the Philippines
leaders based on visual cues, drawing on social psychological theories of
social categorization, person perception, and the cultural dimensions of
leadership and organization. A total of 32 university students of business
studies participated in the study. They were presented with eight images
of people with different visual expressions and reflected in writing on
what kinds of leaders these people would be. The data were analyzed
using qualitative content analysis. The findings show that both Finnish and
Filipino students had similar perceptions of what kinds of leaders the peo-
ple in the images might be. However, in terms of leadership preferences,
the Finnish students appeared to place more emphasis on the person’s
level of communicativeness and friendliness, whereas levels of competence
and commitment were emphasized more strongly by Filipino students. The
theoretical approach and design of the study may be applied in research
on leaders’ visual nonverbal expressiveness in multicultural organizations.
Introduction
Visual nonverbal behavior plays an important role in social interactions. Besides the modification
of verbally communicated meanings, this type of behavior is perceived to reflect people’s inten-
tions, motives, and attitudes toward one another (Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008; Skowronski and
Ambady 2008). Visual nonverbal behavior not only refers to people’s facial expressions, gestures,
and movements, it also encompasses other visually perceived features, such as clothing, hairstyles,
and makeup (Babad 2009). Of these features, facial expressions play the most significant role as
they are associated with the ability to express emotions (Skowronski and Ambady 2008;
Zebrowitz and Montepare 2008), which means that visual nonverbal behavior is central to social
interactions (Barsade 2002). Dissimilar to more deliberate and controlled verbal communication,
people are not always aware of the messages they send through their visual nonverbal behavior
(Foley and Gentile 2010). However, other people may interpret their visual features to convey
deliberate meanings, which can complicate communications and cause unwarranted misconcep-
tions. In a similar way, visual features contribute to how employees view their leaders
(Martikainen and Hujala 2017). Visual perceptions can influence leader-employee relations
CONTACT Jari Martikainen jari.martikainen@uef.fi Department of Social Sciences, Ita-Suomen yliopisto - Kuopion
kampus, Kuopio, Finland
ß 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this
article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 149
positively or negatively; this impacts the atmosphere in the organization and ultimately affects its
performance (Martikainen and Hujala 2017; Ruben and Gigliotti 2016). In multicultural organiza-
tions, employees from different cultural backgrounds may have different expectations for their
leaders which may pose severe challenges for the organizations (Tsai and Qiao 2023). Therefore,
leaders of multicultural organizations should have behavioral cultural intelligence, which refers to
their “capability to enact a wide repertoire of verbal and nonverbal actions during intercultural
encounters” (Patel and Ahmad 2018, 362). With its qualitative approach, our study endeavors to
shed light on how different kinds of leaders’ nonverbal behavior are perceived and interpreted by
Finnish and Filipino university business students.
Previous studies noted that the construction and interpretation of visual non-verbal behaviors is
very much culturally specific (Bjornsdottir et al. 2017; Matsumoto 2006). Different cultures have
different conventions of visual non-verbal behaviors, leading to culturally specific visual orders
that regulate these behaviors in different social roles. Visual orders, in turn, affect the way people
acting in different social roles are perceived (Sepp€anen 2006). For this reason, leaders’ visual non-
verbal behaviors may be interpreted differently by employees from different cultures, if those lead-
ers work in multicultural organizations (see, e.g., Tsai and Qiao 2023). In addition, prior research
on the cross-cultural dimensions of leadership and organization have shown the influence that cul-
ture has on areas such as management policy, leadership preferences, and the norms of organiza-
tional interaction (e.g., Dorfman et al. 2012; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; Starren et al.
2013). This may also be a factor influencing the ways in which leaders are perceived.
This qualitative study examines cultural differences when perceiving leaders’ visual non-verbal
expressiveness. Drawing on social psychological theories of social categorization, person percep-
tion, and the cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations, this qualitative study explores
how business students at universities in Finland and the Philippines perceive leaders’ visual non-
verbal expressiveness and whether these perceptions differ between the two groups of students.
Finland is a Scandinavian country in the north of Europe that has been independent since 1917.
Prior to its independence, it was part of Sweden and Russia (Martikainen and Sakki 2021). The
Philippines, in turn, is a Pacific South country that has been under Spanish and U.S. rule before
it became independent in 1946 (Nadeau 2020). Even though these two countries are located in
different parts of the world and do not have any historical connections, they have recently
become connected in terms of employment. Currently, Finland is facing a severe shortage of
employees in many professions and, as a result, Filipino workers are actively recruited by Finnish
companies, for example, in social and health care organizations (Vartiainen et al. 2016).
This research attempts to address the following research gaps. There are no prior studies compar-
ing the perception of leaders’ visual communication among Finnish and Filipino business students
or organization members. Because of the growing number of Filipino employees recruited by
Finnish organizations, especially in health care organizations (Isaksen and N€are 2022; Vaittinen,
Sakilayan-Latvala, and Vartiainen 2022; Vartiainen et al. 2016), there is a pressing need to under-
stand the differences as well as similarities in organizational communication also in terms of the per-
ception of leaders’ visual communication. This need is also justified by the fact that the
organizational cultures in Finland and the Philippines differ from each other substantially according
to Hofstede’s (1980, 1983) cultural dimensions theory. In addition, to our knowledge, no other study
has previously combined social psychological approaches of social categorization and person percep-
tion with cultural dimensions of leadership and examined their interconnectedness in the context of
management. Hence, this study provides a novel theoretical angle to the study of cross-cultural man-
agement and organizations. Finally, our study addresses a group of people mostly ignored in studies
of management and organizations—namely university business students. In our view, this target
group is very important, since in the future they act in two organizational positions—as leaders and
as employees. Therefore, it is important to increase not only the awareness of cultural differences in
interpreting visual nonverbal communication but also the culture-sensitive visual nonverbal behavior
150 J. MARTIKAINEN AND T. A. TAN
among this target group. In addition to addressing the aforementioned shortcomings in prior
research on management and organizations, this study seeks to provide a practical picture-based
method for multicultural organizations to reflect on and improve their culturally sensitive leaders’
visual communication.
This small-scale pilot study endeavors to examine the potential of picture-based approach in
this field of research. The students were instructed to review eight images of people and then to
reflect in writing on what kinds of leaders they would be. The research questions were as follows:
(1) How do Finnish and Filipino students perceive and categorize leaders based on visual cues?
(2) Are there similarities/differences in the ways that these two groups of students perceive and
categorize leaders based on visual cues?
Social categorization and person perception

We constantly categorize people, objects, and environments as we encounter them. Categorization
is regarded as a basic human operation that creates a sense of order and predictability to our
everyday lives and social interactions (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014). In different
societies and cultures, studies have shown that people share socially constructed knowledge that
is stored in social categories (D’hondt 2013; Stokoe 2012). Lepper (2000) noted that people use
common social categories to make sense of everyday situational encounters. Thus, categorization
can be understood as a way of navigating situational encounters and the cultural knowledge that
relates to them (Fitzgerald, Housley, and Rintel 2017).
Categorization is also central to person perception (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014;
Sacks 1992). The classification of people according to their social roles (e.g., their occupations) is a
form of social categorization (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014). Social categories can be
conceptualized as prototypes of people performing particular social roles (Sacks 1992). These pro-
totypes also include perceptions of the typical features of visual nonverbal behavior. These features
can be regarded as visual orders that, on the one hand, regulate people’s visual nonverbal behavior,
and, on the other hand, control their perceptions (Housley and Fitzgerald 2015; Sepp€anen 2006).
Person perception based on social categories has dominated the literature for a long time
(Allport 1954; Bartlett 1932; Tajfel 1969). However, recent dual-process models of person percep-
tion challenge the superiority of culturally available social categories. According to dual-process
models, people do not unquestionably categorize others according to existing cultural classifica-
tions; instead, they pay close attention to the features of people’s visual nonverbal behaviors
(Fiske and Neuberg 1990). Hence, in addition to cultural knowledge and situational factors, peo-
ple’s visual features affect others’ perceptions and the manner in which they categorize them
(Balcetis and Dunning 2010; Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008).
In the context of leadership and organizations, studies have shown that employees make infer-
ences about leaders based on the visual clues they provide (Darioly and Mast 2014; Slepian and Carr
2019; Trichas and Schyns 2012). Previous studies have demonstrated that leaders’ facial expressions,
gestures, and clothing, for instance, contribute to the positive or negative perceptions that are formed
about them. For instance, a friendly facial expression is mostly understood to convey communica-
tiveness, whereas a serious or strict facial expression is often regarded as a sign of uncommunicative-
ness. Leaders’ formal attire is associated with formality but also with effectiveness and a sense of
responsibility. A relaxed clothing style, in turn, is understood to communicate informality and
approachability but also a lack of commitment (Bonaccio et al. 2016; Darioly and Mast 2014; Latu
et al. 2019; Little 2014; Schyns and Mohr 2004). Studies have posited that employees use leaders’
visual features as a basis for making inferences about their personality, characteristics, leadership
qualities, and their attitude toward employees. In addition, it has been demonstrated that employees
may also associate leaders’ nonverbal expressions with different leadership styles (i.e., authoritarian,
servant, ethical, and narcissistic) (Martikainen and Hujala 2017).
Following the premises of dual-process models of person perception, we understand person

perception as a process by which people categorize others based on visual cues using cultural cat-
egories as resources of sensemaking. Hence, in our study, we are interested in discovering
whether students coming from different cultural backgrounds and drawing from different cultural
categories perceive and interpret leaders’ visual nonverbal expressiveness in different ways.
Cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations

One of the most influential frameworks for studying intercultural interaction in the workplace is
Hofstede’s (1980, 1980, 1983) cultural dimensions theory. In his cross-national research, Hofstede
(e.g., 1980, 1983, 2011) studied work-related values in 53 countries. The research participants
consisted of employees in different subsidiaries of a multinational company. Hofstede identified
five cultural dimensions according to which national cultures can be distinguished. (1) Power dis-
tance relates to the distribution of power and whether members of organization believe that
power is distributed unequally; (2) individualism versus collectivism refers to the extent to which
organization members prefer to act individually rather than collectively; (3) masculinity versus
femininity relates to the dominant social values (masculine: success, money, material goods; fem-
inine: caring for others, quality of life); (4) uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which
members of an organization tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity; and (5) long-term orientation ver-
sus short-term orientation focuses on designating whether an organization’s actions are driven by
long-term or short-term goals (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; Starren et al. 2013).
Hofstede (2011, 3) understands culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distin-
guishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” Raunio and S€a€av€al€a (2017,
42) state that Hofstede’s work, alongside other functionalist approaches, represents a realist and
monolithic approach to national culture as” implicit, fundamental, systemically causal, territorially
unique and shared.” This kind of approach is problematic, since it understands national culture
as uniform and coherent, ignoring the differences between regions, ethnic groups, different
minorities or subcultures, and individuals (Maznevski et al. 2002; Raunio and S€a€av€al€a 2017).
Although Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and other similar models have been criticized (Gerhart
and Fang 2005; Gordon and Teachman 2008), Starren et al. (2013) and Taras, Steel, and Kirkman
(2011) regard approaches based on national culture as beneficial, in that they may provide some
general expectations about how an organization member’s cultural background may influence
organizational behavior, interactions, and leadership preferences.
Other scholars and research projects have also focused on studying the relation between cul-
ture and leadership/organizational behavior. One of them is project GLOBE which has inspired
scholars to study the effects of culture on leadership and organizational effectiveness for more
than twenty years (Dorfman et al. 2012). This project has identified both universally and cultur-
ally desirable leadership attributes and dimensions as well as formed culture clusters based on
culturally preferred leadership qualities (Dorfman et al. 2012; Javidan and Dastmalchian 2009;
House et al. 2002). Project GLOBE has significantly contributed to the understanding of the intri-
cate relationship between national culture and leadership expectations, behavior and effectiveness.
However, in this study attempting to understand students’ perception of managers’ visual nonver-
bal expressiveness, we focus on Hofstede’s approach, because in his approach the respondents
were employees, whereas the respondents in GLOBE project were managers (Hofstede 2006).
Even though, business students might be managers in the future, their current status as business
students is better aligned with Hofstede’s approach.
When using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to compare the two cultures relevant to this study
(Finland and the Philippines), both differences and similarities emerge (see Table 1). The clearest
differences are found in the power distance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity dimen-
sions. These two cultures differ the most in terms of power distance. While Finland is
Table 1. Overview of worldwide country scores on Hofstede’s dimension (Hofstede Insights, Culture compass, https://www.hof-
stede-insights.com/country-comparison/).
Country Power distance Individualism—collectivism Masculinity Uncertainty avoidance Long-term orientation
Finland 33 63 26 59 38
Philippines 94 32 64 44 27
characterized by a narrow power distance, a very high index for the Philippines indicates inequity
in the distribution of power. Finnish culture therefore appears more egalitarian. When considering
the individualism-collectivism dimension, Finnish culture is more individualistic and Filipino cul-
ture is typically more collectivist. Finally, in terms of the masculinity-femininity dimension,
Finland appears more feminine than the Philippines. In the context of Hofstede’s work, this sug-
gests that values related to caring for others and quality of life tend matter more to Finnish people
than values related to success, money, and materials goods; in the Philippines, the reverse is true.
Several previous studies have shown the influence of culture on many aspects of leadership
and organization (Starren et al. 2013; Taras, Steel, and Kirkman 2011). Some studies show that
leadership preferences, for example, vary from culture to culture (Taras, Steel, and Kirman 2011),
while others indicate that certain leadership characteristics are desired or disapproved of across
cultures (Javidan et al. 2006). Similarly, a number of prior studies have shown that the construc-
tion, perception, and interpretation of visual non-verbal behaviors are culturally specific
(Bjornsdottir et al. 2017; Matsumoto 2006), although others have identified similarities in person
perception across cultures, for instance in relation to perceptions of personal warmth and compe-
tence (Dupree and Fiske 2017; Halkias and Diamantopoulos 2020).
In our study, we examine whether characterizations of Finland and the Philippines in
Hofstede’s (1980, 1983) cultural dimensions theory might explain how Finnish and Filipino busi-
ness students perceive and categorize leaders based on their visual nonverbal expressiveness.
Methodology
Fifteen business students at a university of applied sciences in Finland and 17 business students
at a university in the Philippines participated in the study. Of the 32 total students, 26 were
women and six were men. Their ages varied between 19 and 23 years. The participants were final
year business students attending two courses taught by the authors of this study. The students
taught by the Finnish teacher were all Finnish and the students taught by the Filipino teacher
were all Filipino. All students were invited to participate in the study, and they completed the
assignment willingly. By focusing on university business students’ perceptions of leaders’ visual
nonverbal behavior, this study aligns to prior qualitative organizational research interested in
studying millennials’ thoughts about work and leadership (see, e.g., Chavan et al. 2021).
We showed the participants eight images of people with different styles of visual nonverbal
expression (facial expressions, gestures, clothing, spatial positioning within the image, age, and
gender) (see Appendix A). The first author selected the set of images which were discussed with
the second author. The final set of eight images was agreed by both authors. The criterium for
selecting the images was that they should depict leaders with different types of visual nonverbal
cues. The choice of images was guided by prior studies that show how employees make inferences
of leaders’ personalities and leadership styles based on leaders’ visual nonverbal behavior, such as
facial expressions, gestures and postures (e.g., Amah 2018; Anninos 2018; Dyczowska and
Dyczkowski 2018; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen 2003; Kilicogly 2018; Ling, Liu, and
Wu 2017; Nevicka et al. 2018; Skogstad et al. 2014; Wang and Guan 2018). This body of research
served as basis of selecting images with smiling and serious-looking leaders, leaders wearing cas-
ual and formal clothing as well as leaders depicted in close-ups and rear shoots.
In terms of leaders’ gender, four images depicted female leaders and four images depicted
male leaders. The images depicting female and male leaders featured similar features of visual
communication (e.g., smiling men and women, serious looking men and women, formally dressed
men and women, and casually dressed men and women). Instead of photographs we decided to
use portrait paintings as the starting point. In prior research, reflection on past and present paint-
ings depicting people have been used to study and discuss both leadership (Acevedo 2011;
Martikainen and Hujala 2017; Stedman 2008) and person perception in general (Sakuta,
Kanazawa, and Yamaguchi 2014; Schenk and Stumpel 2017). We chose to use paintings instead
of photographs, because detached from the lifelikeness of photographs, paintings may help partic-
ipants to become more aware of the—often unconscious—ways of interpreting people’s visual
non-verbal expressiveness. As Mannay (2016) states, images may help people notice matters that
are normally taken for-granted in everyday life.
When observing people in works of art, the spectators complete and interpret depicted ges-
tures, actions, and other visual cues based on their experience and knowledge of social life
(Martikainen 2020; Steier, Pierroux, and Krange 2015). Even though the situations of perceiving
people in paintings and in social interaction differ from each other, prior studies show several
similarities between the two processes. For example, people’s facial expressions attract major
attention in both situations (Oosterhof and Todorov 2008; Risko et al. 2012); facial expressions,
body language, and clothing serve as basis of making inferences about real and depicted people
(Brooks and Freeman 2019; Oosterhof and Todorov 2008); and when perceiving people in images
and in social interaction, people interpret visual cues based on their cultural knowledge reminis-
cent of dual-process models of person perception (Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001; Pelowski et al.
2016). For this reason, we assume that our picture-based study design can produce relevant infor-
mation about the ways in which leaders are perceived and categorized in real organizational
settings.
The participants of this study were Filipino and Finnish university business students participat-
ing in one course given by the Filipino lecturer and one course given by the Finnish lecturer.
Therefore, the method of recruiting participants resembles convenience sample. The lecturers
(i.e., the researchers of this study) compiled a PowerPoint presentation of the leader images. The
images of leaders were first shown one by one and then all images on one slide which enabled
the students to observe all images at once. The participants were instructed to describe what kind
of leaders the people in the images would be and justify their views based on the visual cues. The
instruction read: “Observe the paintings as pictures of leaders. What kinds of leaders would the
persons in the paintings be? Write down your answers and justify your views using visual ele-
ments in the pictures.” Later, they had to choose which of the eight leaders they liked the most
and the least. The students were given one hour during the lecture to complete their assignment.
In total, 33 typewritten pages were gathered. A typical answer included a couple of visual cues
and various characterizations of leadership. The length of the responses per image varied between
19 and 81 words: the lengthier answers paid attention to more visual features than the shorter
ones. There was no notable difference between the answers of the Finnish and Filipino students;
both groups paid attention to a few visual characteristics and interpreted them as signs of leader-
ship. Similarly, no notable differences were observed between the answers of the male and female
students. The Filipino students wrote their responses in English, and the Finnish students
responded in their home language. Their answers were translated into English later.
Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data as it is regarded as a basic method of
qualitative analysis that aims to provide an overall understanding of information (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison 2007; Schreier 2014). In practice, it often means classifying the data using
inductive reasoning (Krippendorff 2004; Schreier 2014). Even though the units of analysis can be
single words and their meanings, qualitative content analysis typically focuses on analyzing the
contents and meanings of larger units of verbal expression (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007;
Mayring 2014). Hence, it attempts to gain insight into how the participants understand the
research topic (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007). Lastly, qualitative content analysis may also
be used to quantify parts of the data. However, quantification is not the actual aim of qualitative
content analysis; rather, its purpose is to illuminate patterns in the data, and, in some cases, pro-
mote the reliability and transparency of the analysis (Krippendorff 2004; Moser and Korstjens
2018). With its qualitative orientation, this study seeks to understand university business students’
lay perceptions (Pandey et al. 2021) of leaders’ visual nonverbal communication.
Thus, in the current study, qualitative content analysis was used to determine how students in
Finland and the Philippines categorized the leaders depicted in the images based on the visual cues
provided. The categories of leaders and the visual features associated with them formed the units of
analysis. First, we carefully identified all expressions related to the visual cues of the leaders and the
interpretations the participants made on them. Hence, the categories were determined according to
how the students described, defined, and interpreted the leaders based on their visual cues. Then,
we named the categories—i.e., types of leaders—according to the communicative aspect mentioned
by the participants. In addition to categories of leaders, we were interested to discover which visual
features contributed to the categorization. This study also quantified the ways in which each image
was categorized. However, the quantification is secondary and only serves the purpose of informing
the readers about the frequencies of certain types of categorizations.
In terms of research ethics, the study adheres to the core principles of the Belmont Report:
Respect for persons, beneficence and justice. All students were adults capable of comprehending
the contents and the procedure of the study as well as their contribution to it. The students par-
ticipated in the research voluntarily. Prior their participation, they were asked to read the consent
form that indicated that they had been informed of the research topic and that their anonymity
would be guaranteed. After agreeing to participate in the study, the students submitted the signed
consent forms to the instructors. The data were identified through numbers (e.g., Student 1,
Student 2) and stored in a secure place. The research did not deal with sensitive issues; for this
reason, no precautions in terms of providing counseling, for instance, were arranged. The
research follows the national guidelines for ethical principles in Finland (Finnish National Board
of Research Integrity TENK, 2019); hence, no ethical review statement from the ethical committee
was needed for the study.
Findings
For the sake of clarity and in order to provide the reader with a chance to compare the findings,
we present the results for the Finnish and Filipino data separately. The Finnish and Filipino stu-
dents categorized the images of the leaders in a highly similar manner (Table 2). The visual cues
provided by the leaders communicated similar types of messages to the students in terms of the
identified leadership characteristics. In addition, both sets of students paid attention to similar
visual cues, namely, facial expressions, posture, gestures, style of clothing, and the viewing angle.
However, differences in the responses of the Finnish and Filipino students were found with
regard to who they considered to be the most and least positively perceived leaders (Table 3).
Because in the scope of this article it is not possible to discuss how the Finnish and Filipino
students perceived leaders in all images, we chose to present the findings related to the most posi-
tively and negatively perceived leaders in more detail.
The most positively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students

Friendly and communicative leader
Ten Finnish students perceived the person in Image 3 to be the most positive example of an
effective leader and categorized her as friendly and communicative. They thought that she looked
Table 2. Categorization of leaders by the students using images of the leaders.

Categorization of leaders Categorization of leaders
Images Finnish students (n ¼ 15) Filipino students (n ¼ 17)
Image 1 Bored, disinterested (n ¼ 8) Strict, domineering (n ¼ 9)
(Female) Self-confident (n ¼ 5) Friendly, attentive (n ¼ 4)
Strict (n ¼ 2) Creative, artistic (n ¼ 2)
Rational, pensive (n ¼ 2)
Image 2 Egoistic (n ¼ 8) Distant, self-confident (n ¼ 8)
(Female) Snobbish (n ¼ 3) Demanding, perfectionistic (n ¼ 6)
Self-confident (n ¼ 3) Artistic, theatrical (n ¼ 2)
Pedantic (n ¼ 1) Wealthy, upper-class (n ¼ 1)
Image 3 Friendly, communicative (n ¼ 12) Friendly, communicative (n ¼ 15)
(Female) Supportive (n ¼ 2) Inauthentic (n ¼ 1)
Well-educated (n ¼ 1) Innovative (n ¼ 1)
Image 4 Strict, demanding (n ¼ 8) Strict, authoritative (n ¼ 13)
(Female) Conservative, distant (n ¼ 4) Distant (n ¼ 1)
Arrogant (n ¼ 3) Controlling (n ¼ 1)
Perfectionistic (n ¼ 1)
Fragile (n ¼ 1)
Image 5 Distant (n ¼ 9) Introverted, distant (n ¼ 10)
(Male) Pensive (n ¼ 3) Fatherly (n ¼ 3)
Disinterested (n ¼ 1) Mysterious (n ¼ 3)
Stressed (n ¼ 1) Professional (n ¼ 1)
Unreliable (n ¼ 1)
Image 6 Disinterested (n ¼ 8) Relaxed and lazy (n ¼ 12)
(Male) Self-confident (n ¼ 5) Difficult to please (n ¼ 2)
Arrogant (n ¼ 2) Disinterested (n ¼ 1)
Unreliable (n ¼ 1)
Gifted (n ¼ 1)
Image 7 Unstable, disorganized (n ¼ 6) Anxious, stressed (n ¼ 13)
(Male) Stressed (n ¼ 4) Creative (n ¼ 2)
Creative (n ¼ 3) Disorganized (n ¼ 1)
Anxious (n ¼ 2) Genuine (n ¼ 1)
Image 8 Friendly, experienced (n ¼ 11) Professional, competent (n ¼ 7)
(Male) Authoritative (n ¼ 3) Firm but friendly (n ¼ 6)
Reliable (n ¼ 1) Authoritative, confident (n ¼ 4)
Table 3. The two most positively and negatively perceived leaders and category of leader.
Finnish students (n ¼ 15) Filipino students (n ¼ 17)
The most positively perceived leaders The most positively perceived leaders
Image 3 (n ¼ 10): Friendly and communicative Image 8 (n ¼ 8): Professional and competent
Image 8 (n ¼ 3): Friendly and experienced Image 3 (n ¼ 4): Friendly and communicative
The most negatively perceived leaders The most negatively perceived leaders
Image 5 (n ¼ 9): Distant Image 7 (n ¼ 8): Anxious and stressed
Image 6 (n ¼ 4): Disinterested Image 6 (n ¼ 3): Relaxed and lazy
like an approachable leader who was genuinely interested in the thoughts and opinions of her
employees. These leadership qualities were inferred by her friendly facial expression, her smile,
lack of makeup and the fact that her hair was left down (not tied up). In addition, the close-up
picture positioned her on a similar level to the observer, which contributed to the impression
that she was approachable and caring. Approachability and friendliness were considered to be the
most preferred leadership qualities according to the Finnish students:
She looks like a warm and open-minded leader who cares about her employees and wants to make them
feel good. Her friendly gaze, smile, natural makeup, and hairstyle communicate these meanings to me.
(Student 5)
I think she is a communicative, supportive, and friendly manager. Her friendly facial expression (smiling)
makes me think this. In addition, the close-up and positioning at the same level as the observer make her
look a person with whom it is easy to communicate. She doesn’t emphasize her status. (Student 9)
Her natural looks, smile, and friendly eyes make her look friendly and easy to approach. She looks
authentic and reliable. (Student 10)
Friendly and experienced leader

The second most positively perceived leader was the mature-looking man in Image 8. Three
Finnish students categorized him as friendly and experienced. He was depicted wearing a dark
suit, with short, grayish hair, a neatly shaved face, and had his arms crossed in front of his chest.
In addition, he seemed to regard the observer with a hint of a smile. The Finnish students per-
ceived him to be a prototypical leader (i.e., successful and experienced). The combination of his
suit and his facial expression was interpreted to communicate reliability and friendliness.
However, some of the students perceived that his formal clothing style and “closed” posture (i.e.,
his arms crossed in front of his chest) indicated authority and detachment:
The dark suit and red tie are classic attire for a leader. His hair is carefully combed, the suit is well-tailored,
and the watch on his wrist is of good quality. His posture communicates determination. Based on these
visual features, he looks like a competent and successful leader. However, he doesn’t seem distant because
he is smiling warmly. I think he cares about his employees. (Student 2)
He is an experienced leader who knows how to run a company. His neat clothes, upright posture, and older
age make him look competent and reliable. His facial expression is friendly, which makes him appear
approachable and caring. (Student 10)
I think he is a conservative and authoritarian leader who doesn’t communicate much with his employees.
His polished appearance makes him look like a leader who is self-confident and determined and who
requires a lot from the employees. (Student 13)
The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students

Distant leader
Nine Finnish students perceived the leader in Image 5 to be the most negative example of a
leader. They perceived him to be distant. The picture shows an elderly man wearing a black suit
and hat, looking through a window, with his back turned toward the observer. The latter signaled
distance, detachment, non-communicativeness, and even authority, which the students regarded
as negative leader characteristics. In addition, his bent posture and shabby black suit were inter-
preted as signs of indifference and weariness associated with a leader whose ideas and actions
might not be up to date:
The man has turned his back toward the observer, and for this reason, he looks shy, distant, and difficult to
approach. He is looking through the window … so maybe he has dreams and visions, but he cannot lead the
company. His black suit looks old-fashioned. All in all, this leader appears to be somebody who hasn’t kept
abreast of the times. (Student 1)
The man stands with his back turned on us, so I get the impression that he keeps his distance from
employees and mostly likes to make decisions alone. Based on his black, outdated suit and stooped posture,
the man looks old. Perhaps he is tired of being a leader. (Student 8)
He is a pensive leader who needs a lot of time to make decisions. Based on his posture and the fact that he
has turned away, he looks like a leader who doesn’t like to co-operate with other members of the company.
It would be very difficult to communicate and work with him. (Student 11)
Disinterested leader
Four Finnish students selected Image 6 as the second most negative depiction of a leader.
The image showed a younger-looking man wearing a stained white T-shirt and jeans, sitting with
a relaxed posture, with his arms folded on top of his head. His clothing style and posture were
perceived as inappropriate for a leader and were interpreted as signs of casualness, inefficiency,
and laziness. In addition, the man was depicted looking straight at the observer with a facial
expression that the students thought portrayed boredom, indifference, self-confidence, and narcis-
sism. For this reason, the man was regarded as a leader who was self-conscious, egoistic, and
who did not care about the opinions and feelings of his employees:
He looks like a leader who likes power and uses it to achieve his egoistic ends. He looks arrogant, self-
conscious, and disinterested … his facial expression, relaxed posture, and clothes that are too casual for a
leader. He isn’t interested in listening to the opinions of his employees, and he makes decisions alone. I
think he cares about money and not about people. (Student 2)
He looks like a leader who doesn’t like his job. His facial expression looks angry and bored. Untidy casual
clothes create the impression that he doesn’t take his work seriously, but he probably requires a lot from
the employees. He is not a competent leader, and he likes to boss people around. (Student 6)
His facial expression looks arrogant and disinterested. In addition, the way he sits on the chair and his dirty
T-shirt and jeans make him look lazy. He seems to think he is better than other people. He might be very
capricious and unpredictable. (Student 3)
The most positively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students

Professional and competent leader
Eight Filipino students perceived the mature-looking male leader, wearing a dark suit with a
friendly, smiling facial expression in Image 8, most favorably. The students associated his appro-
priate and neat appearance with success, knowledge, and competence, and his appearance gener-
ated feelings of respect and trust among them. While his competence was the dominant
observable feature, the Filipino students also noted his friendly facial expression, which they
interpreted as a sign of warmth and appreciation of his employees:
He looks like a successful leader who has already brought success to the company. He wears a corporate
attire. The way he poses makes him look like he is knowledgeable about the business world. Also, because
of his face and the color of his hair, he looks like someone who has already contributed a lot to the
company over time. (Student 4)
Looking at the person in the image, I feel good. I feel like I could easily trust him, and he is someone I
could rely on or look up to. His smile looks genuine and sincere, and the way his hands are crossed,
suggests that he has everything together, and he knows what he is doing. (Student 6)
He looks formal and very respectful because of his pose and clothes. His smile also shows that he is a
trustworthy person. Overall, he looks like a boss who talks to his employees, cares for them and maintains
proper relationships with them. (Student 12)
Friendly and communicative leader

Four Filipino students selected the smiling woman (Image 3) as the most positive example of a
leader. Based on her big smile, the woman was assumed to be friendly, cheerful, and approach-
able. In addition, she was seen to be caring and compassionate and someone to whom employees
could turn with their problems. However, some of the students regarded her smile as inauthentic,
which suggested that she might be unreliable:
This kind of employer is someone who is approachable and has a good relationship with her subordinates.
This person always wears a big smile in the office and cheers up the employees. She also dresses like the
average person, which makes her approachable to other people. (Student 7)
She’d probably be the boss that every employee would want to have. She’s compassionate and genuinely
cares about her employees and the organization itself. She also seems very approachable and would really
listen to your ideas and opinions as an employee. Why? She has a kind face, and she’s smiling genuinely in
the picture. Furthermore, she has minimal makeup on her face, which means that she’s simple and not high
maintenance. (Student 17)
She seeks high profits regardless of her employees’ well-being. She acts in control around customers but
scolds and degrades employees who are not performing well. She scares me. It’s her smile that bothers me
the most. It’s like she’s faking it. (Student 5)
The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students

Anxious and stressed leader
Eight Filipino students regarded the middle-aged man in Image 7, staring straight at the observer
with wide open eyes, while grasping his hair, as the most negative example of a leader. His fea-
tures, depicted close up, were associated with panic, nervousness, and stress, which the students
regarded as negative leadership characteristics. His inability to conceal and control his emotions
in public also met with their disapproval and was considered to reflect unprofessional leadership
behavior:
This shows a manager who can’t adapt to change. He also looks like he can’t handle stress and the extreme
challenges the company is facing. His eyes and the way he grabs his hair make him look like he is
panicking over something. (Student 5)
He looks like a manager who is easily stressed and frustrated. The way he holds his hair shows that he is
someone who gets frustrated and stressed a lot. There is also a sense of panic in his eyes. (Student 7)
This depicts someone who always panics. The man looks very frustrated and is the kind of manager who is
always stressed, especially when there are conflicts in the workplace. He gets angry easily and doesn’t have
any control over his emotions. (Student 11)
Relaxed and lazy leader

Three Filipino students perceived Image 6, which depicts a young-looking man wearing a casual T-
shirt and jeans, the most negatively. This person appeared to be a disinterested leader who would
not take responsibility for managing the business properly. His facial expression was described as
self-confident and overbearing. These features were interpreted as signs of a leader who neither
cared about the business, appreciated the employees, nor paid attention to their well-being:
This type of employer would be someone who is laid back, who lets the business run by itself after pointing
out what people must do. Based on his facial expression, he seems to be grumpy and has a “bossy” look,
which indicates that he is full of himself. Placing his arms on his head may show that he is not a traditional
type of boss but is more relaxed. (Student 8)
He looks like someone who’s always chilling or who is lazy. Maybe he looks lazy because of what he is
wearing. This type of manager likes to stay in the office and doesn’t have much interaction with the
employees. Student 11)
He looks like a manager who is not trustworthy and responsible. The way he dresses and the way he sits on
the chair makes him look like he does not care about the company at all. (Student 4)
Summary of the findings

The Finnish and Filipino students paid attention to similar visual cues, such as facial expressions,
posture, and style of clothing; these three visual cues were the primary basis of their categoriza-
tions. Both groups categorized the leaders in Images 2–8 in a highly consistent manner. However,
the data also revealed that the emphasis on specific leadership characteristics varied among the
two groups. For instance, even though both groups of students categorized the leader in Image 8
as competent and friendly, his competence was emphasized more by the Filipino students, while
his friendliness was the most important focus of the Finnish students.
In contrast, the students’ categorizations of the persons in Images 1 and 6 differed from one
another. The majority of the Finnish students categorized the leader in Image 1 as bored and dis-
interested, while the Filipino students characterized him as strict and domineering. With regard to
Image 6, the Finnish students mostly interpreted the leader to be disinterested and self-confident,
while the Filipino students perceived her to be relaxed and lazy.
The positive and negative impressions of the students from both countries were similar.
Leaders in Images 3 and 8 were perceived the most favorably, while those in Images 5–7 were
perceived the most critically. However, the categorizations revealed a slightly different basis
behind the selection of the most positively and negatively perceived leaders. Whereas the level of
approachability in terms of friendliness or detachment seemed to matter most to the Finnish stu-
dents, the level of competence, professionalism, and involvement in running the business were
decisive characteristics for the Filipino students.
Discussion
This small-scale pilot study set out to examine cultural differences when perceiving leaders’ visual
non-verbal expressiveness among Finnish and Filipino business students. Combining the theories
of social categorization, person perception, and the cultural dimensions of leadership and organi-
zations in a novel way, our aim was to examine whether cultural background influences Finnish
and Filipino business students’ perceptions of leaders’ visual nonverbal expressiveness. Finland
and the Philippines were chosen as the contexts of the study because their organizational cultures
differ substantially from each other according to Hofstede’s (1980, 1983) cultural dimensions the-
ory and because more and more Filipino employees are and will be recruited by Finnish compa-
nies (Vartiainen et al. 2016). Therefore, more knowledge about the perception of nonverbal
organizational behavior and leaders’ visual nonverbal expressiveness between these two cultures is
needed. Typical of qualitative research in general (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007) and due
to the limited sample of this small-scale study, the findings of the research cannot be generalized.
The findings of the current study showed that visual cues sufficed to serve as the basis for cat-
egorizing the leaders depicted in the images. This finding is consistent with those of prior studies
that demonstrated the significant role played by visual features in the formation of perceptions of
people in images and social interactions (Martikainen and Hujala 2017; Sacks 1992). Prior studies
have also shown that such categorization occurs rapidly and is mostly beyond conscious control
(Ambady and Rosenthal 1993; Rule and Sutherland 2017). In the current study, the students had
the opportunity to observe the images for approximately five minutes. This meant that they con-
sciously reflected on the messages conveyed by the visual cues.
The findings suggested that of all the visual cues, facial expressions played a central role in the
interpretations. A similar finding was reported in other research (Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008;
Sathik and Jonathan 2013). Often the importance of facial expressions relates to their ability to
communicate emotions, interpersonal motives and intentions (Barsade 2002). Our finding that
physical appearances, gestures, posture and the style of clothing significantly contributed to the
formation of impressions is also consistent with the findings of prior research (Darioly and Mast
2014; Hogue 2013; Schyns and Mohr 2004). The data revealed that the students reflected on the
meanings of different visual cues and interpreted them in relation to one another. Hence, they did
not rigidly adjust the images of the leaders to fit preexisting categories. Instead, they proceeded in
a piecemeal manner by reflecting on the messages using various visual cues. This procedure seems
to be congruent with dual-process theories of person perception where categorization is the result
of negotiations between categorical notions and the visual characteristics of the object of percep-
tion (Gawronski and Creighton 2013; Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001).
According to our findings, visual cues were enough for participants to infer a person’s leader-
ship style. Friendly facial expressions, welcoming gestures, and a neutral but tidy appearance were
associated with the kinds of communicativeness and approachability that are typical of demo-
cratic leadership (Dyczowska and Dyczkowski 2018; Kilicogly 2018) and servant leadership
(Amah 2018; Ling, Liu, and Wu 2017). Strict facial expressions, formal clothing, and arms being
crossed in front of the chest were, by contrast, interpreted as signs of the kinds of authority and
confidence typical of authoritarian and autocratic leadership (Dyczowska and Dyczkowski 2018;
Wang and Guan 2018). Flamboyant clothing styles and arrogant facial expressions were associated
with emphasized self-confidence and egoism, which reflected a narcissistic leadership style
(Anninos 2018; Nevicka et al. 2018). Finally, noticeably casual and shabby clothes, as well as a
stooped posture, were associated with laziness and indifference, and were thought to reflect a lais-
sez-faire leadership style (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen 2003; Skogstad et al. 2014).
The Finnish and Filipino students made similar inferences of leadership styles based on visual
cues, and no cultural differences emerged from the data.
In terms of leadership preferences, the Finnish and Filipino students’ opinions differed from
each other to some extent. Regarding the most positive and negative examples of leadership, the
Finnish students appeared to place greater emphasis on levels of communicativeness. In contrast,
levels of competence and commitment were valued more highly by the Filipino students. Hence,
even though the Finnish and Filipino students perceived and categorized leaders’ visual nonverbal
expressiveness in a similar manner, they seemed to value different types of leaders’ visual expres-
siveness. Whereas the Finnish students valued visual expressiveness referring to communicativeness,
the Filipino students valued visual expressiveness communicating competence and commitment.
This finding may owe to differences in the culture of leadership in Finland and the Philippines.
According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Finnish organizations are characterized by low
levels of power distance (Starren et al. 2013). In several studies, Finnish organizational culture
has been defined as egalitarian, valuing nonhierarchical organizational structures, participation,
and democratic decision making processes (Lewis 2006; P€ oll€anen 2007; Raunio and S€a€av€al€a 2017).
Similarly, the relationship between leaders and employees is often characterized as nonhierarchi-
cal (P€oll€anen 2007). In Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity versus femininity, Finnish culture is
situated closer to the femininity pole, suggesting that care for others and friendliness are impor-
tant values (Starren et al. 2013). The fact that these qualities are related to national and organiza-
tional culture in Finland may go some way toward explaining the finding that Finnish students
most appreciated leaders whom they perceived as communicative, approachable, and friendly.
The view of leadership excellence held by Filipino people, in turn, has been influenced by both
their Asian heritage and long exposure to Western practices. Taormina and Selvarajah (2005)
noted that in the Philippines, similar to most Asian countries with high Power Distance Index,
leaders obtain their power and influence through official positions to achieve the organizational
goals. The Philippine leadership also focuses on strategic thinking, a Western influence, more so
than its ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) neighbors (Taormina and Selvarajah
2005). Perhaps this explains why Filipino students most appreciated leaders whom they perceived
as competent and committed.
Our small-scale study suggests that even though the Finnish and Filipino students perceived and
categorized leaders based on visual cues in a highly consistent manner, the leadership characteristics
communicated by certain types of visual expressiveness were valued in different ways, which might
owe to their different cultural backgrounds. Hence, the same type of visual nonverbal expressive-
ness contributed to different leadership preferences among the Finnish and Filipino students.
Strengths and limitations

This study had both strengths and limitations. In terms of strengths, it explored an under-
researched topic in leadership studies, namely perceptions of visual communications by leaders.
The study design, where students perceived images of leaders with different kinds of visual
expression, created an opportunity for reflection on the visual features of the leaders in relation
to their communicativeness. A further strength was that the groups of participants were university
business students from two different cultural backgrounds, which enabled an evaluation of
whether students from different cultures perceived the visual expressiveness of leaders in similar
or different ways.
Evaluating images of the visual expressions of leaders only was a study limitation since gaining
an impression of leaders is not formed solely on visual characteristics but also using other means
of nonverbal and verbal communication, which all contribute to the formation of an overall
impression of leaders’ abilities and ways of communicating in real-life situations during organiza-
tional interactions. In addition, the use of still images eliminated time-related changes to visual
nonverbal behavior.
As Robbins and Judge (2016) put it, the way in which an individual is perceived can depend
on the situation. The dimensions of national culture and organizational culture become inter-
twined in any workplace, since management, policies, and interactions between leaders and
employees are practices through which national culture is performed, interpreted, and modified at
any organization. During this process, national culture becomes situated and context-dependent
(Raunio and S€a€av€al€a 2017). In this study, the situation was a classroom, not a multicultural organ-
ization. Hence, this aspect of situated knowledge in an organization couldn’t be replicated in this
study. Despite this limitation, observing people in images and in social interaction largely base on
similar processes (Brooks and Freeman 2019; Oosterhof and Todorov 2008; Risko et al. 2012), and
therefore, the picture-based study design may produce relevant preliminary information about the
ways leaders are perceived in organizational settings.
In addition, the ideals and conventions of leadership might differ depending on which industry
a business operates in (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar 2018), leading to variation in what is seen as
“ideal” visual non-verbal behavior. For this reason, the fact that our instructions did not define
the images of these leaders in more detail—for example, delineating whether someone was a
front-line manager or a middle manager, or what field they worked in—must be considered a fur-
ther limitation of this study. Since a leader’s role can vary depending on their position within an
organization (Starren et al. 2013), future studies should specify the organizational status of any
leader image, as well as the field they are working in.
Conclusions
The current study demonstrated that the visual cues provided in images of leaders sufficed as
basis for their categorization. Visual cues were used to make inferences about their leadership
characteristics and personal traits. In addition, they constituted signs of the leaders’ interactional
motives and intentions. It was evident that friendly facial expressions, a welcoming posture, and
orderly clothing were perceived positively, whereas inflexible or bored facial expressions, a pos-
ture that signaled detachment, and casual clothing were perceived negatively. Based on these find-
ings, it is reasonable to argue that the visual nonverbal behavior of leaders is an important aspect
of leadership. Visual nonverbal behavior may significantly contribute to perceptions of leaders,
employees’ relations with leaders, as well as the overall atmosphere in the organization and its
performance, which has been reported in prior studies (Little 2014; Ruben and Gigliotti 2016;
Talley and Temple 2015).
Even though perceptions of images of leaders with diverse visual expressions were mostly per-
ceived in similar ways by the Finnish and Filipino students, there were some notable differences
in leadership preferences which might owe to different cultural backgrounds. In future, it would
be interesting to conduct a similar study with a larger number of participants and to combine the
task of visual perception with assignments that map methods of categorization, as well as the
reasons for categorizing leaders in a particular way. The use of a larger study and more diversi-
fied data might also confirm the preliminary findings identified in the current pilot study.
Even though our study was conducted among university students, we suggest that a similar
study design may be used in multicultural organizations to study how employees coming from
different cultural backgrounds perceive and categorize leaders based on visual nonverbal expres-
siveness. This kind of knowledge may contribute to leaders’ multicultural competence in terms of
culturally sensitive visual nonverbal behavior and may promote interaction in international and
multicultural organizations.
Disclosure statement
No potential competing interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Jari Martikainen works as a University Lecturer of Social Psychology at the University of Eastern Finland,
Finland. He holds a Ph.D. both in Art History and in Social Psychology. His research focuses on visual and multi-
modal approaches to studying management and leadership, migration and populist communication.
Tiffany A. Tan works as a Professor of Business Management at the University of the Philippines, Philippines. She
obtained her Ph.D. in Business Management from the same university. Her main areas of interest are marketing
management, services marketing and management, organizational behavior, consumer behavior and branding.
ORCID
Jari Martikainen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8027-2417
References
Acevedo, B. 2011. “The Screaming Pope: Imagery and Leadership in Two Paintings of the Pope Innocent X.”
Leadership 7 (1):27–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010386859
Allport, G. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Amah, O. E. 2018. “Determining the Antecedents and Outcomes of Servant Leadership.” Journal of General
Management 43 (3):126–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307017749634
Ambady, N., and R. Rosenthal. 1993. “Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations from Thin Slices of
Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (3):431–41.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431
Anninos, L. N. 2018. “Narcissistic Business Leaders as Herald of the Self-Proclaimed Excellence.” International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 10 (1):49–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-01-2017-0001
Asrar-Ul-Haq, M., and S. Anwar. 2018. “The Many Faces of Leadership: Proposing Research Agenda Trough a
Review of Literature.” Future Business Journal 4 (2):179–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.002
Augoustinos, M., I. Walker, and N. Donaghue. 2014. Social Cognition. An Integrated Introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.
Babad, E. 2009. The Social Psychology of the Classroom. New York: Routledge.
Balcetis, E., and D. Dunning. 2010. “Wishful Seeing: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception of the Physical
Environment.” In Social Psychology of Visual Perception, edited by E. Balciter and D. G. Lassiter, 77–101. New
York: Psychology Press.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. “The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (4):644–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bjornsdottir, R. T., K. O. Tskhay, K. Ishii, and N. O. Rule. 2017. “Cultural Differences in Perceiving and
Processing Emotions: A Holistic Approach to Person Perception.” Culture and Brain 5 (2):105–24. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40167-017-0053-z
Bonaccio, S., J. O’Reilly, S. O’Sullivan, and F. Chiocchio. 2016. “Nonverbal Behaviour and Communication in the
Workplace: A Review and an Agenda for Research.” Journal of Management 42 (5):1044–74. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0149206315621146
Brooks, J. A., and J. B. Freeman. 2019. “Neuroimaging of Person Perception: A Social-Visual Interface.”
Neuroscience Letters 693:40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.12.046
Chavan, M., B. Galperin, A. Ostle, and A. Behl. 2021. “Millennial’s Perception on Cyberfloating: Workplace
Deviance or Cultural Norm?” Behaviour & Information Technology 41 (13):2860–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0144929X.2021.1956588
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
D’hondt, S. 2013. “Analyzing Equivalences in Discourse: Are Discourse Theory and Membership Categorization
Analysis Compatible?” Pragmatics 23 (3):421–45. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.03hon
Darioly, A., and M. S. Mast. 2014. “The Role of Nonverbal Behaviour for Leadership: An Integrative Review.” In
Leader Interpersonal and Influence Skills. The Soft Skills of Leadership, edited by R. E. Riggio and S. Tan, 77–
100. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Dorfman, P., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, A. Dastmalchian, and R. House. 2012. “GLOBE: A Twenty Year Journey into
the Intriguing World of Culture and Leadership.” Journal of World Business 47 (4):504–18. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004
Dupree, C., and S. Fiske. 2017. “Universal Dimensions of Social Signals: Warmth and Competence.” In Social
Signal Processing, edited by J. Burgoon, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, M. Pantic, and A. Vinciarelli, 23–33.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyczowska, J., and T. Dyczkowki. 2018. “Democratic or Autocratic Leadership Style? Participative Management
and Its Links to Rewarding Strategies and Job Satisfaction in SMEs.” Athens Journal of Business & Economics 4
(2):193–218. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajbe.4.2.5
Eagly, A. H., M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and M. L. van Engen. 2003. “Transformational, Transactional, and
Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (4):
569–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Fiske, S. T., and S. L. Neuberg. 1990. “A Continuum Model of Impression Formation from Category-Based to
Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation.” Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology 23:1–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2
Fitzgerald, R., W. Housley, and S. Rintel. 2017. “Membership Categorization Analysis. Technologies of Social
Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 116:51–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.012
Foley, G. N., and J. P. Gentile. 2010. “Nonverbal Communication in Psychotherapy.” Psychiatry 7 (6):38–44.
Gawronski, B., and L. A. Creighton. 2013. “Dual Process Theories.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition,
edited by D. E. Carlston, 282–312. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gerhart, B., and M. Fang. 2005. “National Culture and Human Resource Management: Assumptions and
Evidence.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (6):971–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09585190500120772
Gordon, T. L., and B. A. Teachman. 2008. “Ethnic Group Differences in Effective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Markers
of Anxiety.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (4):424–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108318224
Halkias, G., and A. Diamantopoulos. 2020. “Universal Dimensions in Individuals’ Perception: Revisiting the
Operationalization of Warmth and Competence with Mixed Method Approach.” International Journal of
Research in Marketing 37 (4):714–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.004
Hess, U., R. B. Adams, and R. E. Kleck. 2008. “The Role of Facial Expression in Person Perception.” In First
Impressions, edited by N. Ambady and J. J. Skowronski, 234–54. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1980. “Culture and Organizations.” International Studies of Management & Organization 10 (4):15–
41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
Hofstede, G. 1983. “Dimensions of National Cultures in Fifty Countries and Three Regions.” In Explications in
Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by H. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, and R. C. Annis, 335–55. Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. 2006. “What Did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Minds versus Respondents’ Minds.” Journal of
International Business Studies 37 (6):882–96. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400233
Hofstede, G. 2011. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.” Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture 2 (1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G., G. J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hogue, W. 2013. Elements of Leaders of Character. Attributes, Practices, and Principles. Bloomington: Westbow
Press.
House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. “Understanding Cultures and Implicit Leadership
Theories across the Globe: An Introduction to Project GLOBE.” Journal of World Business 37 (1):3–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
Housley, W., and R. Fitzgerald. 2015. “Introduction to Memberships Categorization Analysis.” In Advances in
Membership Categorization Analysis, edited by R. Fitzgerald, and W. Housley, 1–21. Los Angeles: Sage.
Isaksen, L. W., and L. N€are. 2022. “Care Loops, Mobilities and the Neoliberalization of Care in Transforming
Welfare States.” In Care Loops and Mobilities in Nordic, Central, and Eastern European Welfare Sates, edited by
L. N€are and L. W. Isaksen, 175–98. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Javidan, M., and A. Dastmalchian. 2009. “Managerial Implications of the GLOBE Project: A Study of 62 Societies.”
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47 (1):41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411108099289
Javidan, M., R. J. House, P. W. Dorfman, P. Hanges, and M. Sully de Luque. 2006. “Conceptualizing and
Measuring Cultures and Their Consequences. A Comparative Review of GLOBEs and Hofstede’s Approaches.”
Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6):897–914. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400234
Kilicogly, D. 2018. “Understanding Democratic and Distributed Leadership: How Democratic Leadership of School
Principals is Related to Distributed Leadership in Schools?” Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
13 (3):6–23. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1
Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Latu, I. M., M. Schmid Mast, D. Bombari, J. Lammers, and C. L. Hoyt. 2019. “Empowering Mimicry: Female
Leader Role Models Empower Women in Leadership Tasks through Body Posture Mimicry.” Sex Roles 80 (1):
11–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0911-y
Lepper, G. 2000. Categories in Text and Talk: A Practical Introduction to Categorization Analysis. London: Sage.
Lewis, R. D. 2006. When Cultures Collide: Leading across Cultures. Boston: Brealey.
Ling, Q., F. Liu, and X. Wu. 2017. “Servant versus Authentic Leadership. Assessing Effectiveness in China’s
Hospitality Industry.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 58 (1):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965516641515
Little, A. C. 2014. “Facial Appearance and Leader Choice in Different Contexts: Evidence for Task Contingent
Selection Based on Implicit and Learned Face-Behaviour/Face-Ability Associations.” The Leadership Quarterly
25 (5):865–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.002
Macrae, N. C., and G. V. Bodenhausen. 2001. “Social Cognition: Categorical Person Perception.” British Journal of
Psychology 92 (1):239–55. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162059
Mannay, D. 2016. Visual, Narrative and Creative Research Methods. Application, Reflection and Ethics. London:
Routledge.
Martikainen, J. 2020. Visual representations of teachership – A social representations approach. Dissertations of
Social Sciences and Business Studies No 212. Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland.
Martikainen, J. 2020. “How Students Categorize Teachers Based on Visual Cues: Implications of Nonverbal
Communication for Classroom Management.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 64 (4):569–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595713
Martikainen, J., and A. Hujala. 2017. “Johtajuuden visuaaliset kategoriat.”Sosiologia 54 (1):43–62. Visual categories
of leadershiphttps://journal.fi/sosiologia/article/view/124278.
Martikainen, J., and I. Sakki. 2021. “Boosting Nationalism through COVID-19 Images: Multimodal Construction of
the Failure of the ‘Dear Enemy’ with COVID-19 in the National Press.” Discourse & Communication 15 (4):
388–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211002039
Martikainen, J., and A. Hujala. 2017. “Johtajuuden Visuaaliset Kategoriat.” [Visual Categories of Leadership].”
Sosiologia 1:43–62.
Matsumoto, D. 2006. “Culture and Nonverbal Behavior.” In The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication,
edited by V. Manusov, and M. L. Patterson, 219–35. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution.
Klagenfurt: Leibniz-Institut f€ur Sozialwissenschaften.
Maznevski, M. L., C. B. Gomez, J. J. DiStefano, N. G. Noorderhave, and P.-C. Wu. 2002. “Cultural Dimensions at
the Individual Level Analysis: The Cultural Orientation Framework.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management 2 (2):275–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580223001
Moser, A., and I. Korstjens. 2018. “Practical Guidance to Qualitative Research. Part 3: Sampling, Data Collection
and Analysis.” The European Journal of General Practice 24 (1):9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.
1375091
Nadeau, C. 2020. The History of the Philippines. California: Greenwood.
Nevicka, B., A. H. B. De Hoogh, D. N. Den Hartog, and F. D. Belschak. 2018. “Narcissistic Leaders and Their
Victims: Followers Low of Self-Esteem and Low on Core Self-Evaluations Suffer Most.” Frontiers in Psychology
9:422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00422
Oosterhof, N. N., and A. Todorov. 2008. “The Functional Basis of Face Evaluation.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (32):11087–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
Pandey, J., M. Gupta, A. Behl, V. Pereira, P. Budhwar, A. Varma, Y. Hassan, and P. Kukreja. 2021. “Technology-
Enabled Knowledge Management for Community Healthcare Workers: The Effects of Knowledge Sharing and
Knowledge Hiding.” Journal of Business Research 135:787–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.001
Patel, T., and S. Ahmad. 2018. “Cultural Intelligence: A Dynamic and Interactional Framework.” International
Studies of Management & Organization 48 (4):358–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1504474
Pelowski, M., P. S. Markey, J. O. Lauring, and H. Leder. 2016. “Visualizing the Impact of Art: An Update and
Comparison of Current Psychological Models of Art Experience.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10:160.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160
oll€anen, K. 2007. “The Finnish Leadership Style in Transition. A Study of Leadership Criteria in the Insurance
P€
Business, 1997-2004.” PhD thesis, The Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.
Raunio, M., and M. S€a€av€al€a. 2017. “Workaholic or Easygoing? Interpretations of National Culture in Industries
with Immigrant Workforce in Finland.” Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 51:41–60. https://doi.org/10.
23979/fypr.56873
Risko, E. F., K. E. W. Laidlaw, M. Freeth, T. Foulsham, and A. Kingstone. 2012. “Social Attention with Real versus
Reel Stimuli: Toward an Empirical Approach to Concerns about Ecological Validity.” Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience 2 (143):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00143
Robbins, S. P., and T. A. Judge. 2016. Organizational Behavior. London: Pearson.
Ruben, D. D., and R. A. Gigliotti. 2016. “Leadership as Social Influence: An Expanded View of Leadership
Communication Theory and Practice.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 23 (4):467–79. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1548051816641876
Rule, N. O., and S. L. Sutherland. 2017. “Social Categorization from Faces: Evidence from Obvious and Ambiguous
Groups.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 26 (3):231–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417697970
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sakuta, Y., S. Kanazawa, and M. K. Yamaguchi. 2014. “Shedding Light on Painters’ Implicit Knowledge: The Effect
of Lightning on Recognizing Expression and Facial Impressions of a Depicted Person in Portraits.” Japanese
Psychological Research 56 (3):288–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12053
Sathik, M., and S. G. Jonathan. 2013. “Effect of Facial Expressions on Student’s Comprehension Recognition in
Virtual Educational Environments.” SpringerPlus 2 (455):455. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-455
Schenk, A., and J. Stumpel. 2017. “Facial Types in Painting and Recognition Skills: Laymen as Connoisseurs.” Art
and Perception 5 (2):143–67. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002063
Schreier, M. 2014. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, edited by
U. Flick, 170–83. London: Sage.
Schyns, B., and G. Mohr. 2004. “Nonverbal Elements of Leadership Behaviour.” German Journal of Human Resource
Management: Zeitschrift F€ ur Personalforschung 18 (3):289–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700220401800303
Sepp€anen, J. 2006. The Power of Gaze. New York: Peter Lang.
Skogstad, A., J. Hetland, L. Glaso, and S. Einarsen. 2014. “Is Avoidant Leadership a Root Cause of Subordinate
Stress? Longitudinal Relationships between Laissez-Faire Leadership and Role Ambiguity.” Work & Stress 28 (4):
323–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.957362
Skowronski, J. J., and N. Ambady. 2008. “First Impressions: Rationales and Roadmap.” In First Impressions, edited
by N. Ambady and J. J. Skowronski, 1–11. New York: The Guilford Press.
Slepian, M., and E. W. Carr. 2019. “Facial Expressions of Authenticity: Emotion Variability Increases Judgments of
Trustworthiness and Leadership.” Cognition 183:82–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.009
Starren, A., K. Luijters, L. Drupsteen, G. Vilkevicius, and L. Eeckelaer. 2013. Diverse Cultures at Work: Ensuring
Safety and Health through Leadership and Participation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Stedman, N. 2008. “Unleashing Leadership through Artwork.” Journal of Leadership Education 7 (2):14–23. https://
doi.org/10.12806/V7/I2/RF2
Steier, R., P. Pierroux, and I. Krange. 2015. “Embodied Interpretation: Gesture, Social Interaction, and Meaning
Making in a National Art Museum.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lcsi.2015.05.002
Stokoe, E. 2012. “Moving Forward with Membership Categorization Analysis: Methods for Systematic Analysis.”
Discourse Studies 14 (3):277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534
Tajfel, H. 1969. “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice.” Journal of Social Issues 25 (4):79–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-4560.1969.tb00620.x
Talley, L., and S. Temple. 2015. “How Leaders Influence Followers through the Use of Nonverbal Communication.”
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36 (1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2013-0107
Taormina, R. J., and C. Selvarajah. 2005. “Perceptions of Leadership Excellence in ASEAN Nations.” Leadership 1
(3):299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715005054439
Taras, Vas, Piers Steel, and Bradley L. Kirkman. 2011. “Three Decades of Research on National Culture in the
Workplace.” Organizational Dynamics 40 (3):189–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006
Trichas, S., and B. Schyns. 2012. “The Face of Leadership: Perceiving Leaders from Facial Expression.” The
Leadership Quarterly 23 (3):545–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.007
Tsai, C.-J., and K. Qiao. 2023. “A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Fit between Expected and Observed
Leadership Behaviors and Employee Satisfaction: An Empirical Study of the Expectations and Satisfaction of
Chinese Employees toward the Leadership Behaviors of Their Expatriate Supervisors.” International Studies of
Management & Organization 53 (1):19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2174924
Vaittinen, T., M. Sakilayan-Latvala, and P. Vartiainen. 2022. Filipino Nurses as Enablers of the Future Welfare
State: The Global Commodity Chains of Producing Racialized Care Labour for Ageing Finland.” In Nationalism
and Democracy in the Welfare State, edited by P. Kettunen, and M. Tervonen, 184–208. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Vartiainen, P., P. Pitk€anen, M. M. B. Asis, P. Raunio, and M. Koskela. 2016. “From the Philippines to Finland:
Nurses’ Expectations and Finnish Realities.” Journal of Population and Social Studies 24 (1):33–46. https://doi.
org/10.14456/jpss.2016.3
Wang, H., and B. Guan. 2018. “The Positive Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on Employee Performance: The
Moderating Role of Power Distance.” Frontiers in Psychology 9:357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357
Zebrowitz, L. A., and J. M. Montepare. 2008. “First Impressions from Facial Appearance Cues.” In First
Impressions, edited by N. Ambady, and J. J. Skowronski, 171–204. New York: The Guilford Press.
Appendix A. List of images

Image 1. David Hockney: Edith Devanay, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/may/29/david-
hockney-royal-academy-edith-devaney
Image 2. Gwen John: Self-Portrait, 1912. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gwen_John_-_Self-portrait_

(1902).jpg
Image 3. Christine Montaque: Portrait of a Young Woman, Year unknown. https://christinemontagueart.files.word-

press.com/2012/01/montague_teigan-6-x-6-portrait-painting.jpg
Image 4. Paul Cesar Helleu: Portrait of a Young Woman, Year unknown. https://www.oceansbridge.com/shop/
artists/h/hee-her/helleu-paul-cesar/portrait-of-a-young-woman-30
Image 5. Dino Paul: Old Man Looking at Painting (Head in the Clouds), Year unknown. http://artbydino.com/tag/
artist/
Image 6. Alice Neel: Hartley, 1965. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.73438.html
Image 7. Gustava Courbet: The Desperate Man, 1843. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_

Courbet_-_Le_D%C3%A9sesp%C3%A9r%C3%A9.JPG
Image 8. Michael Shane Neal: Portrait of Whitney Macmillan, 1995. https://portraitsinc.com/gallery-test/other/live-

event-paintings/artist.php?id=1547

How Finnish and Filipino University Students in Business Studies Perceive Leaders Based On Visual Cues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Finnish and Filipino University Students in Business Studies Perceive Leaders Based On Visual Cues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Studies of Management & Organization

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mimo20

How Finnish and Filipino university students in

Jari Martikainen & Tiffany A. Tan

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2238459

© 2023 The Author(s). Published with

Published online: 10 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 209

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

How Finnish and Filipino university students in business

Social categorization and person perception

Following the premises of dual-process models of person perception, we understand person

Cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations

The most positively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students

Table 2. Categorization of leaders by the students using images of the leaders.

Friendly and experienced leader

The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students

The most positively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students

Friendly and communicative leader

The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students

Relaxed and lazy leader

Summary of the findings

Strengths and limitations

Appendix A. List of images

Image 2. Gwen John: Self-Portrait, 1912. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gwen_John_-_Self-portrait_

Image 3. Christine Montaque: Portrait of a Young Woman, Year unknown. https://christinemontagueart.files.word-

Image 6. Alice Neel: Hartley, 1965. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.73438.html

Image 7. Gustava Courbet: The Desperate Man, 1843. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_

Image 8. Michael Shane Neal: Portrait of Whitney Macmillan, 1995. https://portraitsinc.com/gallery-test/other/live-

You might also like