Abstract
The paper explores how do Romanian and Japanese employees perceive and describe leadership approaches in the workplace, and how can the cross-cultural differences be explained through Hofstede's cultural dimensions. By using qualitative research methods and conducting semi-structured interviews with young employees from Romania and Japan, this study aims to highlight the impact of cultural values on leadership style in both countries. The results of this research show that the Japanese employees prefer a more structured, hierarchical leadership, while the Romanian employees lean towards a more flexible leadership. From a theoretical point of view this study underlines that cultural values are dynamic by highlighting the changing in the Japanese Short-Term vs Long-Term orientation and offers practical insights for global leaders and multinational companies. This study contributes to a better understanding of leadership approaches across cultures and highlights the importance of an adaptable leadership style in today's rapidly changing work environment. Traditional leadership approaches must adapt to the changing attitudes and expectations that younger workers bring to the workplace. To reflect the dynamic interaction between tradition, contemporary times, and age shifts, our understanding of leadership must evolve beyond unchanging frameworks and adjust to shifting cultural norms.
Cuvinte cheie
leadership
Japan
Hofstede's cultural dimensions
global leaders
Istoric articol
Publicat
01.04.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
Elida Daniela Simion, Liliana Bunescu (2026). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Leadership: Evidence from Romania and Japan. Journal of Economic Sciences, 1(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.2.2026.32
Referințe bibliografice
1. Brooks, F. (2001). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 653-653. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00183-0.
2. Envall, H. D. P. (2015). Japanese diplomacy: The role of leadership, ANU Press.
3. Etzrodt, C. (2020). Ethical issues of globalizing liberal education: The case of Japan. International Journal of Educational Management, 145–158. 10.4236/ce.2020.111001
4. Hatmanu (Gagea), M., Lobont, O., Albu, C., & Moldovan, N. (2014). Impact of national culture on quality of governance development: The Romanian reality. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1032–1040.
5. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Sage
6. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
7. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). Mc. Graw Hill.
8. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE Publications.
9. Howitt, D. (2010). Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
10. Hurduzeu, R.-E. (2015). Culture and leadership: The case of Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 493–497.
11. Dindirel, L.M., Širok, K. (2013). National Culture and Intellectual Capital: Comparative Analysis Romania - Slovenia, Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 22 (Special), 280-289.
12. Luca, A. (2005). Where do we stand? A study on the position of Romania on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Interact - A Study on the Position of Romania on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Available at https://alingavreliuc.wordpress.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/hofstede-romania-comparativ.pdf
13. Maricopa Community College (2023). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Hofstede Insights. (https://open.maricopa.edu/culturepsychology/chapter/hofstedes-culturaldimensions/#:~:text=In2023theMasculinityand,arediscussedindetailbelow).
14. Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2016). Culture and psychology (6th ed.).
15. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 22. 10.1177/16094069231205789.
16. Obara, H., Saiki, T., Imafuku, R., Fujisaki, K., & Suzuki, Y. (2021). Influence of national culture on mentoring relationship: A qualitative study of Japanese physician-scientists. BMC Medical Education, May 25; 21(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02744-2
17. Scutariu, P. ., & Bodnărescu, A. . (2023). A Micro-Research on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions in Local Public Administration. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 10(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/10.1/195
18. Shen, Zijun & Pang, Bing & Li, Xiaohui & Chen, Yunyi. (2024). An Exploration of Japanese Cultural Dynamics Communication Practices through Social Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. 3. 60-72. 10.32996/jpda.2024.3.1.4.
19. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Thomas, D. C. (2008). The handbook of cross-cultural management research. SAGE Publications.
20. Sugimoto, Y. (2010). An introduction to Japanese society (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
21. Taka, I., Foglia, W.D. (2010). Ethical aspects of “Japanese leadership style”. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 135–148 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881582
22. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), p. 329-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001
23. Traquandi, L. (2016). The three classic schools for intercultural management: The Western, Indian and Chinese vision of the world. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, p. 327–345. Available at https://my.liuc.it/MatSup/2016/A86047/3Multiculturalschools.pdf