Leadership Styles in Modern Hawaiian Organizations: Island ...

Leadership Styles in Modern Hawaiian Organizations:
Island Culture at Work

Diana (Dede) B. Osborn www.salamana.com
Leadership consultant [email protected]

Background and Methodology includes 26 emerging Native Hawaiian leaders,
Over a period of three years (2002 to 2005), the age 25 to 36 who came from business as well as
author participated in the design and delivery of community organizations. Because of the sensi-
leadership development workshops for a variety tivity to confidentiality and privacy, the choice
of Hawaiian organizations. This work resulted was made to not require formal/written bio
in a cumulative database containing profiles of data, so the determination of ethnic identity for
over 400 participants who completed the MBTI® most of the participants came from personal in-
(Myers Briggs Type Indicator®) as well as other troductions during the training. That estimate
instruments. The workshops were part of a indicates about 40% of the sample identified
process of organization development as well as themselves as primarily of Asian culture, 30%
individual development, and involved inter- Caucasian, and 30% Native Hawaiian heritage.
views, design, feedback, assessments, training, (Many of the Caucasian participants were born
action planning and some coaching. The pur- and raised in Hawai’i.) As expected, our sample
pose of these programs was not to become a was more heavily weighted with Native Ha-
‘cultural leadership program,’ but to support waiians than the general population in the state
and nurture leadership skills within the context of of Hawai’i.1
local culture and values, and to foster Native
Hawaiian culture and values. This program de- The cumulative data includes 416 MBTI results
sign was intended to walk the bridge between and 400 FIRO results (Fundamental Interper-
indigenous values and modern leadership sonal Relations Orientation – Behavior; Schutz,
methods. 1958, 1977). The database from the Center for
Creative Leadership in Greensboro, NC, was
A series of interviews with local leaders and used as a mainland benchmark for the purpose
kapuna (elders) was commissioned jointly by Alu of discussion — not as a prescriptive model.2
Like, the Pauahi Leadership Institute, and PASE, The Kouzes and Posner Leadership Practices
the research division at Kamehameha Schools. Inventory (2002) was also used to identify lead-
The interviews were intended to gather per- ership strengths and development needs in this
spectives, and suggested content for leadership sample. These instruments were selected for
development training that would specifically their significant research background in mana-
address the competencies most relevant to the gerial populations, their simplicity of online ap-
local and Native Hawaiian population. This 1 The Hawai’i state census for 2000 reports 42%
foundation guided the process and content of Asians; 7% Native Hawaiians; 24% Caucasian.
these workshops and the selection of instru- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Demographi
ments. In answer to the question “What should cs)
be included in leadership training?,” the most 2 The CCL sample is heavily Caucasian at 76% with
common responses were: only 7% Asian or Pacific Islanders represented.

• Self-knowledge/self-awareness (Ike
Pono’i)

• Communication skills (Launa ‘Olelo)
• Life skill and broad perspective
• Education
• Mentors
• Cultural appreciation

The organizations that participated in the
training ranged from private to public, educa-
tion to state government, upper level managers
to local community leaders. Most of the training
was done internally in intact work groups. Al-
though the majority of the participants fell be-
tween the ages of 35 and 45, the data also

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, MBTI®, and Introduction to Type are registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator Trust in the US and other countries.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 2

plication, and for providing three important alists with over 50% fewer Visionaries repre-
mirrors on individual and group behavior: psy- sented. This turns out to be an interesting point
chological type of leaders, interpersonal leader- when we look at perceived strengths and weak-
ship style, and feedback on individual leader- nesses ratings from colleagues on the Kouzes
ship behaviors from others. This paper looks at and Posner Leadership Perspectives.
how the ethnically diverse island culture is re-
flected in the leadership of these Hawaiian or- Some typical characteristics of introverted,
ganizations, and considers the unique sensing, feeling, judging preferences of individ-
challenges facing these organizations during the ual leaders indicate that they:
current period of rapid change and challenge
from abroad. • Are energized by quiet, structured, pre-
dictable, organized work environments
MBTI where they can reach closure before
Table 1 presents the MBTI Type distribution for moving on to another project/task.
the 416 participants in the Hawaiian leadership
programs and compares them with the distribu- • Have adequate time to perform to their
tion of 26,000 participants in the Center for own standards.
Creative Leadership data bank for the 1999 to
2003. We will use as a mainland benchmark for • Don’t like to move beyond their own
organizations. Table 2 presents the same analy- experience before they understand it.
sis with the groups reversed.
• Value traditions and are responsible,
The most common leadership styles in both thorough, and trustworthy.
samples are the ISTJs and ESTJs (28% in Hawai’i
and 36% CCL), but that is where the similarities • Are stressed by others’ incompetence,
end. CCL is 54% extraverted and the Hawaiian deadlines, sudden change, being asked to
sample is 54% introverted (p < .001). The Ha- imagine outcomes.
waiian leadership sample is also significantly
more sensing (60%) and feeling (47%) than the Under stress tend to: become pessimistic
mainland benchmark with almost four times and alternate between accommodating and
more ISFJs represented (11% of the sample). This withdrawing or resisting; blame others, roman-
makes ISFJ and ESFJ the next most frequent ticize the past and can tend to become rigid.
preferences in this sample. Because of the more
equitable split between thinking and feeling In summary, these modern island leaders
preferences in decision making style in this would appear to be significantly more quiet,
sample, we experienced the very active, verbal patient, thorough, traditional and sensitive or
dynamic tension (and frequent conflict) between empathetic than their mainland counterparts.
these perceptions in group discussions, where in The pre-workshop interviews with the partici-
the typical mainland thinking dominant organi- pants reveal that the biggest reported challenges
zation, traditional values and personal impact for them were adapting to change, and commu-
never really become a part of the conversation. nicating more effectively, which certainly cor-
roborates the strong preference for sensing and
Looking at temperaments (Keirsey and introversion. Where the current organizational
Bates, 1984): 50% of the island leadership was environment tends to call for rapid action, open
Traditionalist/Guardians (SJs), wired to seek information flow, and quick adaptation to
belonging to a group or community; conven- change, these leaders are more comfortable be-
tional, conservators who maintain social struc- ing reflective, thorough, planful, and sometimes
tures; 10% Artisans/Diplomats (SPs), preferring can even forget to share information because of
freedom, spontaneity, action, ‘putting out fires’, their preference for introversion. Having a clear
and creativity; 20% Idealists (NFs) who focus on vision of the future becomes much more difficult
others’ personal concerns and personal growth; in the every day struggle to maintain some
authenticity and integrity; and make value- structure and control and ‘put out fires’. The
based decisions; and 20% Visionaries/Rationals challenge is integration – how can one honor the
(NTs) who strive to learn, know, predict, and past and embrace the future; act on personal and
control resources and ideas in the environment community values yet make the hard and neces-
and are recognized for their competence. If you sary business decisions? How can one remain
compare that to the mainland leadership sample pono as a leader of high integrity within this
(43% SJs, 10% SPs, 12% NFs, and 36% NTs) you culture and yet take on some attributes typical
notice immediately that this sample of island of Western culture to be more effective for the
leadership is heavier on traditionalists and ide- needs of the community?

He ho `okele wa `a no ka la `ino

A steersman for a stormy day
A courageous leader

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 3

Table 1. Center for Creative Leadership compared with Hawaiian Leadership Participants

N = 26,413

N% I

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 14529 55.01 1.20***
I 11884 44.99 0.83***
N = 5018 N = 792 N = 264 N = 2113
% = 19.00 S 13998 53.00 0.89**
I = 1.16 % = 3.00 % = 1.00 % = 8.00 N 12415 47.00 1.17**

 I = 0.28*** I = 0.28*** I = 1.04 T 20864 78.99 1.48***
   F 5549 21.01 0.45***

J 17699 67.01 0.95
32.99 1.12
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP P 8714
31.00 0.81**
N = 1056 N = 264 N = 528 N = 1849 IJ 8187 14.00 0.90
% = 4.00 % = 1.00 % = 2.00 % = 7.00 IP 3697 18.99 1.36**
I = 1.28 EP 5017 36.01 1.13

I = 0.46* I = 0.35*** I = 1.53 EJ 9512
ESTP    ST 11620
43.99 1.35***
N = 1056 SF 2378 9.00 0.33***
% = 4.00 0.62***
I = 3.33** NF 3171 12.01 1.69***
 35.00
ESFP ENFP ENTP NT 9244
ESTJ 43.00 0.86**
N = 264 N = 1320 N = 2377 SJ 11358 10.00 1.01
N = 4490 % = 1.00 % = 5.00 % = 9.00 SP 2640 23.00 1.17
% = 17.00 NP 6074 24.01 1.17
I = 1.41**
 I = 0.30*** I = 1.04 I = 1.97** NJ 6341 55.00 1.38***
    TJ 14526 24.00 1.78***
0.56***
TP 6338 9.00 0.39***
12.01
FP 2376

ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FJ 3173

N = 1058 N = 1059 N = 2905 IN 4754 18.00 0.83
% = 4.01 % = 4.01 % = 11.00 EN 7661 29.00 1.57***
IS 7130 26.99 0.83*
26.00 0.95
I = 0.37*** I = 0.76 I = 2.86*** ES 6868
  
 Sdom 7130 26.99 0.85*
23.00 1.11
Ndom 6074 39.00 1.66***
11.01 0.46***
Tdom 10300

Fdom 2909

Note: n = 1% of sample. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Base total N = 416. Groups are independent.

Calculated values of Chi Square or Fisher’s exact probability (underlined).

Type Table Significance E 13.68 IJ 10.65 SJ 8.18 IN 3.66
I 13.68 IP 0.90 SP 0.01 EN 21.98
1.87 82.84 27.03 0.05 S 7.74 EP 6.82 NP 2.50 IS 6.18
N 7.74 EJ 2.91 NJ 2.87 ES 0.42
0.82 5.51 28.89 3.74 T 159.86 ST 21.25 TJ 37.65 Sd 4.65
F 159.86 SF 160.36 TP 25.04 Nd 1.25
0.01 22.35 0.03 9.89 J 2.17 NF 21.43 FP 25.02 Td 41.12
P 2.17 NT 37.05 FJ 130.16 Fd 69.78
7.22 48.20 1.73 21.59

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 4

Table 2. Hawaiian Leadership Participants compared with Center for Creative Leadership

N = 416

N %I

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 191 45.91 0.83***
I 225 54.09 1.20***
N = 68
% = 16.35 N = 45 N= 15 N = 32 S 249 59.86 1.13**
I = 0.86 3.61 % = 7.69 N 167 40.14 0.85**
 % = 10.82 %= 3.61*** I = 0.96
 T 222
I = 3.61*** I =  F 194 53.37 0.68***
ISTP   46.63 2.22***

N = 13 
% = 3.12
I = 0.78 J 293 70.43 1.05
 123 29.57 0.90
ISFP INFP INTP P
ESTP 160 38.46 1.24**
N= 9 N = 24 N = 19 IJ 65 15.62 1.12
N= 5 % = 2.16 % = 5.77 % = 4.57 IP 58 13.94 0.73**
% = 1.20 EP 31.97 0.89
I = 0.30** 133
 I = 2.16* I = 2.89*** I = 0.65 EJ
   ST 136
ESTJ 113 32.69 0.74***
SF 27.16 3.02***
N = 50 81 19.47 1.62***
% = 12.02 NF 86 20.67 0.59***
I = 0.71**
 ESFP ENFP ENTP NT 208 50.00 1.16**
 41 9.86 0.99
N = 14 N = 20 N = 19 SJ 82 0.86
% = 3.37 % = 4.81 % = 4.57 SP 85 19.71 0.85
NP 20.43
166
I = 3.37*** I = 0.96 I = 0.51** NJ 56
   TJ 67
39.90 0.73***
TP 127 13.46 0.56***
16.11 1.79***
FP 90 30.53 2.54***
77
ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ FJ 135
114
N = 45 N = 22 N = 16 N 21.63 1.20
% = 10.82 % = 5.29 % = 3.85 EN 132 18.51 0.64***
IS 86 32.45 1.20*
98 27.40 1.05
I = 2.70*** I = 1.32 I = 0.35*** ES
   100
 Sdom 31.73 1.18*
20.67 0.90
Ndom 23.56 0.60***
24.04 2.18***
Tdom

Fdom

Note:  = 1% of sample. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Base total N = 26,413. Groups are independent.

Calculated values of Chi Square or Fisher’s exact probability (underlined).

Type Table Significance E 13.68 IJ 10.65 SJ 8.18 IN 3.66
I 13.68 IP 0.90 SP 0.01 EN 21.98
1.87 82.84 27.03 0.05 S 7.74 EP 6.82 NP 2.50 IS 6.18
N 7.74 EJ 2.91 NJ 2.87 ES 0.42
0.82 5.51 28.89 3.74 T 159.86 ST 21.25 TJ 37.65 Sd 4.65
F 159.86 SF 160.36 TP 25.04 Nd 1.25
0.01 22.35 0.03 9.89 J 2.17 NF 21.43 FP 25.02 Td 41.12
P 2.17 NT 37.05 FJ 130.16 Fd 69.78
7.22 48.20 1.73 21.59

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 5

FIRO and Rogers, 1996) This indicates a tendency to
send mixed messages, but this is not signifi-
Table 3 presents the results for 400 participants cantly different from the mainland sample.3
on the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Also, most people in leadership positions report
Orientation–Behavior by W. C. Schutz. The that they are simply overwhelmed with the time
FIRO-B is a self-assessment that measures as- demands of work and don’t have the time or
pects of interpersonal behavior such as Inclu- interest in being included in any other activities.
sion, Control, and Affection. This is a common feeling in any organization at
this point in time.
Table 3. FIRO-B Participants in Hawaiian
Leadership Programs 2002-2005 The Hawaiian sample with moderate ex-
pressed affection and moderate wanted affection
N=400 is very similar to the mainland sample. These
are people who come across as warm, accessible,
Inclusion Control Affection and supportive and need about the same
amount of closeness from others. The challenge
3.8 2.6* 3.7 for these moderately affectionate folks is being
Expressed (CCL 4.0) appropriately confrontational when necessary
(CCL 4.4) (CCL 3.8) and setting healthy boundaries without worry-
Std 2.1 Std 2.6 Std 2.2 ing about always being liked.

Wanted 1.9 3.6 4.4 The control scores, with a low average of 2.6
(CCL 3.0) (CCL 2.9 (CCL 5.0) in expressed control and moderate average of
Std 3.2 Std 1.8 Std 2.1 3.6 wanted control, are really the most signifi-
cant scores that point toward a potential cultural
* Indicates a moderate and meaningful statistical dif- difference. (Statistically this is a moderate and
ference with CCL (Cohen effect calculation) meaningful difference from the mainland
Center for Creative Leadership database; n=26,759 benchmark.) These scores suggest individuals
Jan. 1999 to July 2003; participants in Leadership De- who give the impression of not wanting to lead
velopment programs. or influence others but can do so more easily if
they can consult with others first. Hence the
Inclusion: The tendency to surround your- tendency to sometimes convene meetings to so-
self with others; to join groups licit input for even the most minor decisions. At
a minimum, these leaders need a lot of informa-
Control: The tendency to assume responsi- tion about expectations and the opportunity to
bility and make decisions and tell others share responsibility rather than assume it alone.
what to do; influence others This is probably one element of the frustration
with a lack of teamwork mentioned in inter-
Affection: The tendency to form warm and views; people expressed a preference for being
close relationships with others; express told what was expected and then being left
feelings comfortably; encourage others alone to do it.

Expressed behavior: What we show to oth- The limiting effect here is a hesitancy to step
ers. out in front and influence. The so-called ‘Crab
Syndrome’ (pulling at any crab who tries to
Wanted behavior: What we want others to climb out of the bucket); or criticizing anyone
give to us. ‘arrogant’ enough to stand up and take charge,
is also a cultural factor that is inhibiting to peo-
The scores run from 0 to 9 with zero indi- ple with significant affection needs. I’ve been
cating that the person is very selective about told of the bad luck that befalls anyone profiled
who and when he expresses or accepts that be- on the cover of Hawai’i Business Magazine for
havior toward or from others. Nine suggests individual achievement–their business fails im-
that the person very often seeks out or fre- mediately thereafter. The only acceptable tribute
quently expresses that behavior. Zero to 2 is is to celebrate a person for service to others. At
considered a low score, 3-6 is considered the the same time, there was a very strong interview
average range, and 7-9 is considered high or fre- theme from local leaders to desire stronger lead-
quent seeking out or expressing that behavior. ership at all levels of the organization – to find a
This instrument is commonly used in organiza-
tions to clarify interpersonal roles and dynamics 3 It also explains how introversion can fit into a col-
within teams. lectivist culture; working in groups but being private
and selective.
These local leaders scored a low moderate
average of 3.8 in expressed Inclusion and a low
average of 1.9 in wanted Inclusion. This combi-
nation suggests people who prefer to involve
others in their activities and have a wide range
of acquaintances but also have a strong need for
privacy which others don’t necessarily see and
which leads others to think they want to be in-
cluded more than they really do. (Waterman

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 6

willingness to take responsibility and focus on Over the last 18 years of Kouzes and Posner
results. research, these competencies have been shown
to be an observable, learnable set of practices
The challenge here is to learn to communi- relevant to any organizational level and most
cate assertively but respectfully, to say what you any industry. There are 30 items assessing be-
want before you feel taken advantage of. It is havior and the respondents are typically self,
learning that Servant Leadership may some- boss, peers, and direct reports providing 360-
times require you to stand alone or lead the degree ratings. The scale of responses from 1 to
charge, if that is in the service of the commu- 10 ranges from ‘almost never’ observing this
nity/group in that situation. Combining the in- behavior to ‘almost always’ observing this be-
clusion, control, and affection preferences, the havior. Research has shown that the more these
island leadership style could be experienced as behaviors are used, the more leaders are:
somewhat non-assertive, reactive, independent,
and tending not to share information or com- • Effective in meeting job-related demands
municate openly. In fact, the term ‘leadership’ • Developing high performing teams
has clear negative connotations in this cultural • Experiencing loyalty and commitment
environment. It tends to be confused with • Surrounded with motivation and willing-
dominance. Influence also tends to be perceived
as a negative word, we discovered; and leader- ness to work hard
ship, in general, can be looked on as a high-risk • Possessing high degrees of personal
activity. Consequently people seem to be wait-
ing to be led by someone else. In this particular credibility
area, a very diverse culture from an ethnic point Table 4 presents the results for the Hawaiian
of view appears to lack some diversity in leader- sample.
ship style. If adaptability to complex situations Table 4. Summary of Leadership Practices
is key to survival in the modern, changing world and Behaviors
of organizations, the real vulnerability is to have N=173 participants; n= 1219 observer ratings
no choices in behavior to manage those realities.
Most Frequently Observed Leadership
Schnell and Hammer (2004) point out that, if Practices
these preferences of interpersonal style also re-
flect the organizations as a whole, the organiza- Enabling Others to Act
tion that does not emphasize inclusion or Modeling the Way
control but does emphasize affection can be de- Least Frequently Observed Leadership
scribed as having: Practices
Challenging the Process
• Barriers to the inner circle Inspiring a Shared Vision
• Isolation of subgroups Most Frequently Observed Leadership
• Warmth and ‘family’ feeling Behaviors
• Resistance to diversity Treats people with dignity and respect
• Formality that may interfere with crea- Follows through on promises and commit-

tivity ments
• Wide distribution of power Gives team members appreciation and sup-
• General direction provided along with
port
autonomy Least Often Observed Leadership Behaviors

Leadership Practices Inventory Appeals to others to share their dream of the
The Kouzes and Posner Leadership Practices future
Inventory measures Five Leadership Practices
with 6 items for each of the 5 factors (see Ap- Experiments and takes risks
pendix A): Describes a compelling image of the future

Challenging the Process: Experimenting and The highest ratings — most observed lead-
taking risks; innovation ership behaviors as items — of 1219 respon-
dents, were: treats people with dignity and
Inspiring a Shared Vision: Envisioning the respect, follows through on promises and com-
future and seeing possibilities. mitments, and gives team members appreciation
and support. We recognize preferences of feel-
Enabling Others to Act: Fostering colabora- ing, judging, and expressed affection in this list.
tion and involving others. The lowest ratings, least viewed leadership be-

Modeling the Way: Setting an example and
create standards.

Encouraging the Heart: Recognizing contri-
butions and celebrating results.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 7

haviors, were: appeals to others to share their something distinct to offer the world in leader-
dream of the future, experiments and takes ship attributes.
risks, and together describe a compelling image
of the future. Here we can see the impact of an What is striking about the leadership style
introverted sensing preference and lower ex- of this population is that many of the behaviors
pressed control. The highest rated of the five that characterize this group are the very traits
practices were enabling others to act and mod- missing in so many Western organizations. In
eling the way and the lowest were challenging fact, it’s the absence of these traits among lead-
the Process and Inspiring a Shared Vision. This ers in mainland organizations that typically has
confirms the tendency for fewer people of vi- been the focus of much assessment feedback and
sionary temperament in this sample, that is, training. The extraverted, thinking, initiating
those who are typically more focused on con- leadership style looks very different from the
trolling resources, developing ideas, and in- introverted, feeling, respectful style. But the
creasing and valuing competency. Challenging leadership challenge universally has been de-
the process probably requires less commitment scribed as ‘doing the right thing, at the right
to the past and more willingness to run risk and time, in the right way’ which is so much more
manage the potential conflict arising from that challenging in a very diverse environment, be
challenge than most of these local leaders would that ethnic, linguistic, or international.
find comfortable. And it is most certainly diffi-
cult to inspire people moving into the future if When the Center for Creative Leadership
you find yourself longing for the past. conducted its research on organizational success
in the 1990s, one of the greater risk factors was
“...we look to the future; called ‘overdone strengths.’ In times of changing
we leave the time of mourning to demand, instead of learning new skills to create
live in a new world, a new beginning... more balance and flexibility, people who de-
let us tell the world that we lived railed (or failed) tended to rely more on their
and will continue...” traditional, and comfortable, strengths. In other
words, do more of the same, but just harder. In
Virgil Kills Straight, Lakota Nation the case of these island leaders, the challenge is
to not be so reflective that there is no action; to
Discussion not be so humble that it is a prideful thing; to
not be so respectful that they cannot give cor-
The most consistent and typical organizational rective feedback; to not be so sensitive that they
results internationally on MBTI and FIRO in the can’t hear, or consequently use, feedback on
past have found that managers tend to be their performance.
thinking judging types who ‘like to be in charge’
(See Appendix B and C.) This multi-cultural When ’treating people with dignity and re-
leadership sample, however, is quite different. spect’ becomes confused with masking thoughts
Embedded in any leadership style, there are and feelings, then conflict has no resolution and
certain behaviors that work well and others that passive aggressive behavior can result (‘chirp-
don’t, and so it is in present day Hawai’i. ing’ or gossiping), and even speaking candidly
about work can feel risky or disrespectful. Con-
The daily leadership challenges of address- sequently, learning and performance suffer, and
ing threats to the environment; of ensuring the oddly, trust. True collaboration and teamwork
economic, health, and educational well-being of depends on openness and effective conflict
native Hawaiians; and the gift and curse of high resolution, which in turn also encourages trust.4
levels of tourism and seasonal residents, have Speaking candidly, authentically, and respect-
raised the stakes for effective leadership. The fully in the moment requires great courage, but
islands need strong and effective local leader- it carries great reward. However, it also requires
ship as never before in order to ensure their the situational exercise of extraversion, objectiv-
preservation and health. ity, exercising more control, and the perceived
risk of offending others.
Our results found that the primary leader-
ship style represented in this local population of The challenge for all of us is changing the or
leaders can be characterized as: reflective, thor- to and in leadership. To be candid and respect-
ough, gentle, responsible, sensitive, and guardi- ful; courageous and humble; make hard business
ans of tradition (through MBTI results); decisions and implement them in a humane and
inclusive, affectionate, independent and hesitant considerate way are the most difficult challenges
to take control (on the FIRO); respectful, appre-
ciative, enabling of others, and committed (LPI 4 There are ritualized and traditional methods for re-
ratings.) What a terrific list of qualities! The local solving conflict in island culture, but they usually
Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian culture has only come into play after a crisis ensues and the proc-
ess, typically, is quite time consuming.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 8

of leadership in any organization, be that family, leadership; leaders show up and choose to be
community, or work. Jung’s process of indi- present; they stand and deliver, and sometimes
viduation (characterized by one writer as ‘secu- it is a solitary stance, k_ hanohano. Whether it is
lar salvation’) is our lifelong journey. having mana or ‘the mandate of heaven’ or ‘ex-
ecutive presence’, we know it when we see it
All temperaments can and do serve others, and feel it. (Interestingly, managerial courage
but stewardship looks different for different has also been defined as being able to give and
types. Of course, Guardians (SJs) steward receive personal feedback (Lombardo and
through faithfully serving a meaningful com- Eichinger, 2004).
munity (Linder, 2005), but Idealists (NFs) serve
through their capacity to find answers to what When the warrior self is not developed or is
can be done with and for people. Artisan (SPs) repressed, the shadow presents as rebellion and
stewards prefer action and immediate impact; having authority—control issues—and shows
helping now. And the Visionary/rational stew- patterns of invisibility like holding back, with-
ards, who are less evident in this sample of drawing, or riding on the coattails of powerful
leaders, challenge themselves and others to people. George Leonard has a Manifesto for the
achieve excellence and give life a mission and a Modern Warrior (1994) reminding us that the
vision. Developing and appreciating visionary modern warrior “…is not one who goes to war
leadership is a critical challenge for local leader- but rather one who is dedicated to creating
ship; if you don’t know where you are going, peace; pursues self-mastery through will, pa-
you’ll probably end up someplace else, as they tience, and diligence; takes risks to further the
say! Intuition in Native Hawaiian culture seems general good; studies esthetics, culture and an-
to focus more on na`ao (gut knowledge or body cient wisdom; and reveres the spiritual realm.”
wisdom) than on a vision of the future. But it is The warrior takes on the perceived risk of lead-
the polishing of all of these facets within our- ership with courage and integrity; sets standards
selves and the appreciation of all of these lead- and demands excellence, all in service of the
ership roles in our organizations that make for greater good. This is his/her kuleana (responsi-
strong stewardship. bility). Building on the gifts of spirit and the
value of community, the warrior leader truly is a
If you want to build a ship, don’t herd peo- servant leader.
ple together to collect wood and don’t assign
them tasks and work, but rather teach them to It is the author’s opinion that continuing to
long for the endless immensity of the sea. develop strong leadership in the Hawai’i of to-
day isn’t about becoming more Western, but
Antoine de Saint-Exupery about becoming more completely Hawaiian
(teachers and healers as well as warriors and vi-
Reclaiming the warrior within is another sionaries) and polishing all of those many multi-
way of envisioning this process of bringing bal- cultural facets of self to honor all of the many
ance to the softer side of leadership. Angeles Asian, Native Hawaiian, and culturally mixed
Arrien (1993) talks about the warrior as the ar- ancestors who have left such a strong legacy to
chetype of leadership; involving honor and re- steward the future of these precious islands.
spect, aligning words with actions, respecting
limits and boundaries, demonstrating the right Ho `omoe wai k_hi ke k_o `o
use of power, and being responsible and disci- Let’s all travel together like water flowing in one
plined. It is a courageous and necessary role in direction.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 9

REFERENCES Lombardo, M M. & Eichinger, R W. (2004). FYI:
Arrien, A. (1993) The Four Fold Way: Walking the For Your Improvement, A Guide for Develop-
ment coaching. Lominger Limited, 207-213.
Paths of the Warrior, Teacher, Healer and Vision-
ary. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publisher. Quenk, N. L. (2000) In The Grip. Mountain View,
Barger, N. J. & Kirby, L. K. (1997). T ype and CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Change. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press. Ryan, L. R. Clinical Interpretation of the FIRO-B.
Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1984). Please Understand Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Me. Del Mar, CA: Promethesus Book Co. Press, 1977.
Kouzes, James M. & Posner, Barry Z. (2002). The
Leadership Challenge. New York, NY: John Schnell, E. R. and Hammer, A. L. (2004) Introduc-
Wiley and Sons, Inc. tion to the FIRO-B in Organizations. Palo Alto,
Hirsh, S. & Kummerow, J. M. (1998) Introduction CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
to Type in Organizations. Palo alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A Three Dimensional
Leonard, G. (1994). The Awakened Warrior. NY: Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York:
Plume Books. Reinhart.
Linder, R. (2005). Stewardship Through Tem-
perament: Serving Others and Ourselves. Waterman, J. A. & Rogers, J. (1996) Introduction
Bulletin of Psychological Typ.e 28, pp. 11-13. to the FIRO B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 10

Appendix A. Items on the Leadership Practices Inventory
Challenging the Process
Seeks challenging opportunities.
Challenges people to try new approaches.
Looks outside organization for ways to improve.
Asks, “What can we learn?”
Experiments and takes risks.
Takes initiative to overcome obstacles
Enabling Others to Act
Develops cooperative relationships.
Listens to diverse points of view.
Treats people with dignity and respect.
Supports other people’s decisions.
Lets people choose how to do their work.
Ensures that people grow in their jobs.
Inspiring a Shared Vision
Talks about future trends.
Describes a compelling image of the future.
Appeals to others to share their dream of the future.
Shows others how their interests can be realized.
Is enthusiastic and positive about the future.
Speaks with conviction about the meaning of work.
Modeling the Way
Sets an example of what is expected.
Ensures that people adhere to agreed-on standards.
Follows through on promises and commitments.
Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership.
Ensures that goals, plans, milestones are set.
Makes progress toward goals one step at a time.
Encouraging the Heart
Praises people for a job well done.
Expresses confidence in people’s abilities.
Creatively rewards people for their contributions.
Recognizes people for commitment to shared values.
Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments.
Gives team members appreciation and support.

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006

Osborn 11

Appendix B. International Managers MBTI Data
N = 4,905

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

EC 21.9 ||||||||||||||||||||||+ 2.9 ||| 1.6 || 11.8 ||||||||||||
FC 25.6 |||||||||||||||||||||||||+ 1.2 | 6.1 ||||||
4.4 ||| 1.7 ||
JPN 5.9 |||||| 4.2 |||| 0.0 16.1 ||||||||||||||||
CHN 21.6 |||||||||||||||||||||+ 1.0 | 2.7 |||
16.0 |||||||||||||||| 2.7 ||| 0.0
UK 14.0 |||||||||||||| 1.0 | 2.0 || 14.0 ||||||||||||||
NET 25.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||+ 1.0 | 10.0 ||||||||||
17.0 ||||||||||||||||| 1.0 | 0.0
BEL 15.0 ||||||||||||||| 1.0 | 9.0 |||||||||
ITA 9.0 |||||||||
0.0 6.0 ||||||
SAU 0.0

EC ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
FC
JPN 4.6 ||||| 1.2 | 2.4 || 8.3 ||||||||
6.1 |||||| 4.1 |||| 5.1 ||||| 5.4 |||||
CHN 0.8 | 1.7 || 0.0 2.5 |||
UK 2.7 ||| 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 || 1.0 | 6.0 |||||| 12.0 ||||||||||||
NET 3.0 ||| 0.0 1.0 | 9.0 |||||||||
BEL 5.0 ||||| 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 |||||
0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 ||||
ITA 4.0 |||| 0.0 23.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||+ 2.0 ||
SAU

EC ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
FC
3.9 |||| 1.0 | 3.6 |||| 6.7 |||||||
JPN 4.9 ||||| 1.9 || 3.2 ||| 7.5 ||||||||
CHN 8.5 ||||||||| 5.9 |||||| 4.2 |||| 2.5 |||
2.7 ||| 0.0 2.7 ||| 5.4 |||||
UK 4.0 |||| 1.0 | 4.0 |||| 9.0 |||||||||
NET 7.0 ||||||| 0.0 3.0 ||| 14.0 ||||||||||||||
3.0 ||| 0.0 1.0 | 7.0 |||||||
BEL 3.0 ||| 1.0 | 0.0 9.0 |||||||||
ITA 6.0 |||||| 2.0 || 0.0 0.0

SAU

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

EC 15.5 |||||||||||||||| 1.9 || 2.5 ||| 10.0 ||||||||||
FC 17.6 |||||||||||||||||| 2.9 ||| 1.7 || 2.4 ||
JPN
21.2 |||||||||||||||||||||+ 5.1 ||||| 3.4 ||| 16.1 ||||||||||||||||
CHN 35.1 |||||||||||||||||||--|||+ 5.4 ||||| 2.7 ||| 16.2 ||||||||||||||||
UK
10.0 |||||||||| 1.0 | 4.0 |||| 13.0 |||||||||||||
NET 20.0 ||||||||||||||||||||| 3.0 ||| 3.0 ||| 14.0 ||||||||||||||
BEL
28.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||||+ 0.0 1.0 | 12.0 ||||||||||||
ITA 23.0 |||||||||||||||||||||||+ 2.0 || 0.0 14.0 ||||||||||||||
SAU
25.0 ||||||||||||||||||||||||+ 0.0 0.0 17.0 |||||||||||||||||

Note: | = 1 Percent. Eng EC (English Canada) n = 3,798 - Osborn, Osborn, & Twillman; FC (French Canada) n =

411 - Poirier; JPN (Japanese CEOs) n = 118 - MacDaid, McCaully, & Kainz; CHN (China) n = 37 - Broer & McCarley;

UK (Britain) n = 140, NET (Netherlands) n = 117, BEL (Belgium) n = 142, ITA (Italy) n = 90, SAU (Saudi Arabia) n = 52

- Center for Creative Leadership. Osborn 1996, 2000

Psychological Type and Culture—East & West: A Multicultural Research Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, January 6-8, 2006