HOW ARAB EXECUTIVES LEARN By Amira Khattab A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Educational Psychology and Educational Technology Œ Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT HOW ARAB EXECUTIVES LEARN By Amira Khattab This exploratory investigation aims to identi fy best practices associated with classroom- based professional development programs and ex amine the relationship between culture (both values and geographical regions) and learning preferences of Arab leaders. Existing research indicates that approaches to learning vary across cultures and that incongruence exists between modern (i.e., imported Western) pedagogical models and traditi onal orientations to learning typically found in the Arab classroom. Yet empi rical research in the Arab world around best practices and learning preferences of executives has been scarce. In this study, I raise five key research questions: (a) What are the most effec tive Arab leadership development practices (i.e. learning activities, leadership competencies, motivation enablers , barriers to participation, instructor™s characteristics and learning environment) as identifi ed by business and international management experts? (b) What are the similari ties and differences between experts™ and Arab learners™ views of best leadership development practices? (c) How do regi onal differences relate to learning preferences of Arab executives? (d ) How do cultural dimensions relate to Arab executives™ learning preferences? and, (e) How do executives™ characteristics (i.e. gender, sector, age and education background) relate to Arab preferences for leadership development? These research questions are addressed through the analysis of three sets of existing data. First, the Delphi process was utilized to survey 24 experts in the field of executive education to determine the factors that they deem significant in influe ncing the effectiveness of the design and delivery of leadership professional development programs. This survey was followed by eight face-to- face interviews to elucidate issues (e.g., gender and cultural sensitivity), which arose from the Delphi process. The third phase of data collection used a forced-choice method questionnaire administered to more than 1,500 business leader s from 17 different countries, carried out by internet exchange, telephone and written correspondence. This large-scale survey identified Arab leaders™ cultural background and gauged their responses to the methods that the experts interviewed in the first two phases identified as best practices. This study analyzes the responses, limitations notwithstanding, to identify best prac tices related to central aspects of classroom- based professional development programs and ex amines the relationship between culture and Arab leaders™ learning preferences. Findings enco urage the appreciation of local tradition and openness to new approaches to leadership and learning. Keywords: Arab culture, best practices, learning preferences, leadership development, motivation, barriers to participation and instructional design. Copyright by AMIRA KHATTAB 2015 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Robert E. Floden, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair: Thank you for believing in me, broadeni ng my perspectives, and propelling me forward. Your unequivocal investment in me through your mentorship, your wisdom, your sharp delving questions, and your teachings have given me an example of how to enact true leadership. I sincerely appreciated your kindness and unwavering respect you showed to my own thinking and being my backbone throughout this journey. Kimberly S. Maier, Ph.D., Thank you for being extraordinarily generous with your time, empathy, and nurturing spirit. Thank you for your guidance, especially with the statistical analysis, which would not have been possible without your patience and mentorship. Thank you for scaffolding my learning and caring so inte ntly about my growth as a professional, scholar and person. Patrick Dickson, Ph.D., Thank you for critically and aesthetically probing into my data. You planted the seeds in me awakening a new frame of reference on how to interpret meanings behind complex and large data sets and represent the information with purpose and vision. I am sincerely grateful for your and Robin Dickson™s unconditional care and support. Steven Weiland, Ph.D., Thank you for engaging deeply into the contextual challenges that intersect with leadership development and stretching my thi nking about the historical and contemporary vi issues facing the Arab region. I am deep ly grateful for your continued support and guidance. David Wong, Ph.D. and John Dirkx, Ph.D.: Thank you for showing me the path for how adults learn and building the blocks for this study. Your mentorship, collegiality and friendship were both an inspiration and a force energizing me to complete the story. I owe you immensely. Geert Hofstede, Ph.D., Richard Nisbett, Ph.D., and Abbas Ali, Ph.D.: I am deeply indebted and grateful to each of you for your rich scholarly work, which was the foundation of my conceptual framework. You have made significant impact on my growth and learning as I ha ve developed my expertise in cultural psychology, business management and comparative research. Family, Friends, and Colleagues: Farouk, my son, this dissertation is dedica ted to you, my proudest achievement in life. Dear husband, mother and family, thank you for laying the groundwork for my success and helping me achieve my dreams. A sincere thank you for my friends and colleagues around the world, particularl y, at Michigan State University. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ....... xi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... .... xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Political and Socioeconomic Landscape ......................................................................... 1 The Gulf. ..................................................................................................................... 2 North Africa and Levant. ............................................................................................ 3 Nationalization. ........................................................................................................... 4 Skills mismatch. .......................................................................................................... 4 Gender balance............................................................................................................ 5 Arab Leadership .............................................................................................................. 6 Differences between Western and Arabic leadership models. .................................... 7 Differences between educational backgrounds of executives. ................................. 10 Differences within the Arab world. .......................................................................... 12 The construct of culture. ....................................................................................... 13 National cultures. .................................................................................................. 14 Geographical regions. ........................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................... 22 Methods of Review ....................................................................................................... 22 Expert Recommendations of Best Practice Principles for Leadership Development ... 25 Western best practices. .............................................................................................. 25 Learning activities. ................................................................................................ 26 Instructor™s characteristics. ................................................................................... 29 Learning environment. .......................................................................................... 29 Leadership competencies. ......................................................................................... 32 Best practices in the Arab classroom. ....................................................................... 32 Learning activities. ................................................................................................ 32 Leadership competencies. ..................................................................................... 35 Homogeneity. ........................................................................................................ 39 Comparing Experts to Executives™ View s of Leadership Development ...................... 41 Learning preferences of executives. ......................................................................... 42 Preferred learning activities. ................................................................................. 42 Desired leadership competencies. ......................................................................... 45 Learning enablers and barriers to participation. ................................................... 47 Perceived motivation enablers. ......................................................................... 48 Perceived barriers to participations. .................................................................. 49 Desired instructor™s characteristics. ...................................................................... 52 Ideal learning environment. .................................................................................. 52 Executives™ learning preferences versus experts™ best practices. ............................. 53 viii Culture and Leadership Development .......................................................................... 54 Learning preferences and culture. ............................................................................. 55 A dialectic approach. ............................................................................................ 58 Leadership practices and culture. .............................................................................. 59 Summary of Findings from Research ........................................................................... 64 Expert recommendations of best practice principles for leadership development. .. 64 Comparing experts to executives™ view s of leadership development. ...................... 65 Executives™ background and leadership development. ............................................. 66 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ........................................................ 68 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 68 Description of the Existing Data ................................................................................... 69 The experts. ............................................................................................................... 69 The focus group. ....................................................................................................... 70 The executives. ......................................................................................................... 71 Methods to Generate the Data....................................................................................... 74 The Delphi method. .................................................................................................. 74 Validity and reliability. ......................................................................................... 76 The focus group interviews. ...................................................................................... 78 Interview procedure. ............................................................................................. 79 Recording and analysis methods. .......................................................................... 80 Reliability and validity. ......................................................................................... 81 The large scale survey. .............................................................................................. 82 Translation. ........................................................................................................... 82 Scales from the LSS ...................................................................................................... 83 Approach to creating the scales. ............................................................................... 83 Preferred learning activities (LA). ............................................................................ 89 Desired leadership competencies (LC). .................................................................... 90 Perceived motivation enablers (ME). ....................................................................... 92 Perceived barriers to participation (BP). ................................................................... 93 Learning environment (LE). ..................................................................................... 94 Instructor™s characteristics (IC). ................................................................................ 96 Regional areas. .......................................................................................................... 97 Hofstede™s cultural values. ........................................................................................ 97 PDI items from LSS. ............................................................................................. 98 UAI items from LSS. ............................................................................................ 99 Formulae. ............................................................................................................ 100 Validity and reliability of indices. ...................................................................... 101 Matching samples. .............................................................................................. 102 Demographics. ........................................................................................................ 103 Age. ..................................................................................................................... 103 Veterans. ......................................................................................................... 104 Baby Boomers. ................................................................................................ 104 Gen X. ............................................................................................................. 105 Millennials or Gen Y. ..................................................................................... 105 Type of education. .............................................................................................. 106 ix Sector. ................................................................................................................. 106 Homogeneity. .......................................................................................................... 107 Data Analysis to Address the Research Questions ..................................................... 109 Executives™ background questions. ......................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 117 Findings by Research Question .................................................................................. 117 Expert Recommendations of Best Practice Principles for Leadership Development . 117 Learning activities. .................................................................................................. 118 Leadership competencies. ....................................................................................... 120 Motivation enablers. ............................................................................................... 128 Barriers to participation. ......................................................................................... 132 Learning environment. ............................................................................................ 135 Instructor™s characteristics. ..................................................................................... 135 Comparing Experts™ to Executives™ Vi ews of Leadership Development ................... 136 Areas of agreement. ................................................................................................ 137 Learning activities. .............................................................................................. 138 Motivation enablers. ........................................................................................... 138 Instructor™s characteristics. ................................................................................. 138 Areas of disagreement. ............................................................................................ 139 Leadership competencies. ................................................................................... 139 Barriers to participation. ..................................................................................... 139 Learning environment. ........................................................................................ 139 Homogeneity related items. ................................................................................ 140 Executives™ Background and Learning Preferences ................................................... 140 Learning preferences and geographical regions. .................................................... 141 Learning preferences and national cultures. ........................................................... 145 National cultures. ................................................................................................ 146 PDI. ................................................................................................................. 147 UAI. ................................................................................................................ 148 Effect of PDI and UAI on learning preferences. ................................................. 151 Learning preferences and demographics. ............................................................... 155 Western and Arabic educational background. .................................................... 155 Public and private sectors. .................................................................................. 158 Age groups. ......................................................................................................... 161 Gender. ................................................................................................................ 163 Homogeneity. .......................................................................................................... 166 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPL ICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE ...................................................................................................................... .......... 169 Summary of Results and Discussions per Question ................................................... 171 Research Question 1. .............................................................................................. 171 Research Question 2. .............................................................................................. 173 Research Question 3. .............................................................................................. 173 Research Question 4. .............................................................................................. 174 Research Question 5. .............................................................................................. 174 x Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 175 Implications to Practice and Policies .......................................................................... 177 Need for a gradual shift. .......................................................................................... 179 Need to be cautious of the tension. ......................................................................... 182 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................ 185 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 1 87 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... ....... 190 Appendix A: Selected Del phi Items and Ratings ....................................................... 191 Appendix B: Face-to-Face Interview Questionnaire Guide ........................................ 203 Appendix C: Large Scale Survey ................................................................................ 205 Appendix D: Comparing Executives ™ and Experts™ Scores ........................................ 222 Appendix E: Tables Comparing Executives Across Region ...................................... 227 Appendix F: Comparing Experts Ac ross Educational Backgrounds .......................... 231 Appendix G: Comparing Execu tives Across Sectors ................................................. 234 Appendix H: Comparing Execu tives Across Age Groups .......................................... 237 Appendix I: Comparing Ex ecutives Across Gender ................................................... 238 Appendix J: HLM Methodology ................................................................................. 239 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... ...... 244 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Delphi Demographics .................................................................................................. ... 70 Table 2: Birth Nationalities .................................................................................................. ...... 72 Table 3: Reliability Statistics ............................................................................................... ......... 77 Table 4: Correlations..................................................................................................................... 87 Table 5: Construct Scores ..................................................................................................... ........ 89 Table 6: Learning Activities Items ............................................................................................ ... 90 Table 7: Leadership Competencies Items ..................................................................................... 91 Table 8: Motivational Enabler Items ........................................................................................... . 93 Table 9: Barriers to Participation ............................................................................................ ...... 94 Table 10: Learning Environment Items ........................................................................................ 9 5 Table 11: Instructor's Characteristics ........................................................................................ .... 96 Table 12: Homogeneity Items ................................................................................................... .. 108 Table 13: Effects of Region on Learning Preferences ................................................................ 141 Table 14: Effects of Hofstede's Nationa l Values on Learning Preferences ................................ 146 Table 15: Effects of Educational Background on Learning Preferences .................................... 156 Table 16: Effects of Sector on Learning Preferences ................................................................. 159 Table 17: The Effects of Age on Learning Preferences .............................................................. 162 Table 18: Effect of Gender on Learning Preferences ................................................................. 164 Table 19: Effects of Homogeneity on Learning Preferences ...................................................... 167 Table 20: Comparing Executives and Expe rts for Learning Activities (LA) ............................. 222 Table 21: Comparing Executives and Experts for Leadership Competencies (LC) ................... 222 xii Table 22: Comparing Executives and Expert s for Motivational Enablers (ME) ........................ 223 Table 23: Comparing Executives and Experts for Barriers to Participation (BP) ...................... 224 Table 24: Comparing Executives and Expe rts for Learning Environment (LE) ........................ 225 Table 25: Comparing Executives and Experts for Instructor Characteristics (IC) ..................... 225 Table 26: Comparing Executives and Experts for Homogeneity (HO) ...................................... 226 Table 27: Mann Whitney U Results for Region ......................................................................... 227 Table 28: Selected Mann Whitney U Results for Education Backgrounds ................................ 231 Table 29: Selected Mann Whitn ey U Results for Sector ............................................................ 234 Table 30: Kruskal-Wallis H Statistically Significant Results for Age ....................................... 237 Table 31: Mann Whitney U Statistically Significant Results for Gender ................................... 238 Table 32: Variance Components ................................................................................................. 240 Table 33: Unexplained Variance Reduc tion by Independent Variable ...................................... 241 Table 34: Intercept Values .................................................................................................... ...... 242 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Participants by Nationality–––––––––––––––––––––––.72Figure 2: Participant Gender .................................................................................................. ....... 73Figure 3: Arab/Non-Arab Schooling ............................................................................................ 73Figure 4: Participant Region .................................................................................................. ....... 73Figure 5: Participant Age ..................................................................................................... ......... 73Figure 6: Participant Sector .................................................................................................. ........ 74Figure 7: Development Se ssion Preference Item .......................................................................... 86 Figure 8: Leadership Qualities Item ........................................................................................... .. 87Figure 9: Factor Loading ...................................................................................................... ........ 88Figure 10: Nationality Options ................................................................................................ ..... 97Figure 11: Age Item ........................................................................................................... ......... 103Figure 12: Education an d Training Item ..................................................................................... 10 6Figure 13: Work Sector Item ................................................................................................... ... 107Figure 14: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Learning Activities .................................. 118 Figure 15: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Leadership Competencies........................ 120 Figure 16: Delphi Experts' Selected It em Means for Motivat ional Enablers ............................. 128 Figure 17: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Barriers to Participation........................... 132 Figure 18: Delphi Experts' Selected It em Means for Learning Environment ............................. 134 Figure 19: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Instructor Characteristics ......................... 135 Figure 20: Mean Rankings of Experts vs. Executives ................................................................ 137 Figure 21: Item Mean Difference by Re gion (Item Grouped by Construct) .............................. 143 xiv Figure 22: PDI Values of Nations .............................................................................................. . 150Figure 23: UAI Values of Nations .............................................................................................. 151 Figure 24: HLM Graph of PDI vs LA ........................................................................................ 152 Figure 25: HLM Graph of UAI vs LC ........................................................................................ 152 Figure 26: Item Mean Difference by Educati on Background (Items Grouped by Constructs) .. 158 Figure 27: Item Mean Difference by Sector ............................................................................... 161 Figure 28: Item Means by Age .................................................................................................. . 163Figure 29: Item Means by Gender .............................................................................................. 166Figure 30: Mean Construct Scores Across Nations .................................................................... 168 Figure 31: Conceptual Model Relating Executives ' Characteristics to Learning Preferences.... 179 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Political and Socioeconomic Landscape While Arab leaders across the private and public sectors face perpetually turbulent political and socioeconomic changes, they must also deliver ambitious results that support institutional reform and economic growth. As su ch, unpacking effective leadership development models capable of channelling the productivity of the Arab world™s human capital is vital to the stability of the region (Mameli, 2013). The gl obalized and complex make-up of many Arab countries calls for versatile leaders who stri ke a balance between indigenous and modern practices, promoting the engagement of their employees and performance of institutions. Therefore, it is critical to examine universal l eadership practices against local cultural contexts and imperative to study how such flavored appr oaches differ across Arab executives. Identifying best practices for leadership development by dr awing on experts in the region and understanding variations across executives™ learning preferen ces will guide the effective design of classroom based leadership development programs. Custom ized leadership deve lopment programs would support in (a) defining ways to integrate Western practices within Arab constructed scenarios, (b) understanding key leadership qualities that executives need to m ove their team and organizations toward a productive, fair, and stable future, and (c) addressing the variability across executives within the Arab world. To that end, this st udy begins by examining the socioeconomic and political system that confronts business leaders and culminates in recommendations that enable constructive reflection on how, what and why Arabs CEOs learn, according to experts and executives™ views. Political, economic, and social forces have historically shaped both concepts of leadership and leaders™ attributes and behaviors. Today, the rich yet volatile Middle East and 2 North Africa (MENA) region calls for deft leader s capable of tapping into the vast opportunities that lie ahead and leading their people to more secu re environments in the years to come (Jreisat, 2009b). The effects of the 2011 Arab Spring--the popular revolutionary uprisings--are still reverberating across the MENA region. In the Gulf region, Kuwa it and Al Bahrain, for example, are experiencing Iranian-fueled tension between Shiite and Sunni, leading to instability. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Iraq have seen their regimes collapse in le ss than three years. Yemen and Syria, affected by Sunni fundamentalist ideologies (Al Qaeda and Islamic St ates), have collapsed into devastating civil wars. Lebanon and Palestine continue to suffer either from a lack of leadership or globally recognized statehood. Even the most stable Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, are lo sing their resilience and need to respond to a generational change polarized between negotiating more liberal reforms and enforcing conservative regimes. An increasingly young populat ion-- 60% of which is under the age of 30-- is driving this tension between liberal and conservative ideologies (Future Trends in the Gulf, 2015). The Gulf. On one hand, several gulf oil rich countries are trying to benefit from vast natural resources and push for improvements in their competi tiveness (World Economic Forum & OECD, 2011). However, oil-dependent resources in many of those GCC states are proving insufficient to sustain the ‚break-even™ prices needed to meet the bills of their growing population heavily dependent on public-sector wages. It is estimated that hydrocarbon resources will in fact run out within the lifetime of gulf c itizens born today. Furthermore, the volatility of world prices, lack of diversification of other industries, and conflicts resulting from the fair distribution of wealth among the elite and citizens who expect more in how they are governed and sharing their countries™ wealth are forces that may cont ribute to the phenomenon known as 3 the Natural Resource Curse (Frankel, 2012). Thus, oil abundance in many res ource rich countries may be viewed as a double-edged sword. While oil-based economies have led to short-term economic growth, the oil abundance has also led to a less developed knowledge economy. Fostering such a knowledge economy is much needed, as it could bring high-valued educational and innovative intellectual products and services independent from oil driven sectors to MENA nations. North Africa and Levant. Other Arab states, many of which are in North Africa and the Levant, do not possess vast access to natural resources and face numerous impediments. These challenges include deterioration in security, an influx of refugees (The Associated Press, 2015), disrupted and stagnating economies, underdeveloped financial markets, corruption, and a brain drain (Iqbal, 2014). According to Khalid al-Wazani, an economist with the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the so-called fiArab brain-drai nfl (i.e., the loss of educated workforce to developed states) is increasing with an estimat ed loss of 10-15% of young Arabs in 2012 leaving their countries for better opportunities. This figure is accentuated among Levant countries (e.g., Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan) and is linked to decades of political instability (Ozden, 2006). Even though many young Arabs are leaving the MENA region for better opportunities abroad, 2.8 million young people still enter the labor market every year. Despite the considerable differences between MENA states, the common de nominator that business leaders need to confront across the three regions (North Africa, Levant and GCC) is the dire need to create employment opportunities for these young pe ople (World Economic Forum & OECD, 2011). Faced with adverse disparities in regional ec onomies, political turmoil, and social unrest, Arab human capital experiences tough pressures and has significantly deteriorated since the uprisings (Khan, Ahmad, & Shah, 2014). The current environment that government and business 4 leaders are operating within applies three critical human capital related pr essures: (a) localization of labor (also called nationalization); (b) a mismat ch of skills; and (e) gender imbalance in a workforce dominated by men (Mameli, 2013). Nationalization. Job creation is mainly hampered by the disproportionate weight of the public sector in the region's economies (e.g., 70 % of non-agricultural employment in Egypt, for instance, is in the public sector) (WEF & OECD, 2012). In an attempt to reduce the heavy reliance on public sector employme nt of nationals, several Gulf countries are enacting policies and imposing quotas on the private sector to devel op and substitute expatriates with local talent. Such regulatory measures have produced mixe d results. While this policy may increase the employability of nationals, employers, whether national or foreign, are concerned that the enforced nationalization schemes will impede them from reaching their business objectives and performance indicators due to the lack of ad equate qualified local workforce (World Economic Forum & OECD, 2012). Indeed, the WEF-OECD repor t identifies the inadequacy of skills is a key deterrent to foreign direct investment (FDI) and successful expansion of multinational industries in the region. The lack of job opportunities, underperforming educational systems (Khan, 2013), and rising living standards as a result of increasing inflation can induce instability and discontent among citizens. Around 60% of G CC citizens, for example, are under 30. Indeed, the mismatch between youth™s aspirations to join the workforce and the realities of the Arab labor demand has been identified by many economists as one of the driving forces for the Arab Spring (Reinl, 2015). Skills mismatch. The second issue facing executives is the mismatch of skills across many parts of the Arab region. Unemployment in MENA is not only featured among the unskilled and burgeoning youth population but also acute among the most educated (Chaaban, 5 2010). In 2005, approximately 25.3% of workers in OECD countries for which data are available were overqualified for their jobs, and 22.2% were under-qualified. One of the reasons for this pattern is a persistent gap between the skills acq uired at universities and the requirements of job market. In nations where economies are stagnant (typically in the Levant), tough recruitment and firing regulations are often associated with reduced job opportunities, underutilization of overeducated talent, and the brain drain. Anothe r reason that accentuates the mismatch is the practice of granting job opportunities based on rampant workplace discrimination, also called wasta (Beschel, 2010). As family businesses cons titute over 85% of the whole Arab non-oil GDP, staffing and recruitment rests heavily on personal or familial connections. This system promotes a culture of nepotism over meritocracy and discourages the pursuit of education. The meritocracy index measures the degree to whic h businesses fill positions based on professional managers (as opposed to relatives and frie nds) and the relationship between pay and productivity. Results from the World Economic Fo rum and the OECD study (2012) showed that at least 50% of the Arab countries rank at the bottom half of the Global Competitiveness Index (i.e., 71st or below). Gender balance. Another area of significant unrealized potential is the female labor force. The low participation of women in the labor force is widely considered as a missed opportunity for economic growth. Approximately 33% working-age women join the labor force, compared with 61% in OECD me mber countries. The gender gap in unemployment is the most acute in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arab ia, Kuwait, Yemen, and Egypt, where the female unemployment rate is nearly quadruple the male unemployment rate. The male-dominated workplace is attributed partially to a patriarchal culture that is reluctant to engage women in leadership roles and decision-making processe s (Maaitah, Oweis, Olimat, Altarawneh, & Al 6 Maaitah, 2012). Gender discriminati ng laws are also attributed to the gender gap. Despite such gender discriminating culture and laws, Khodr (2012) contends that several GCC cities are likely to end up largely peopled and run by women due to women™s increasing access to tertiary education and recent emphasis on gender balance. Fostering steady and sustainable growth entails addressing higher levels of formal private sector employment in the long run. Indeed, acco rding to the WEF and OECD report on The Arab World Competitiveness (2012), employment is ar guably one of the most vital development challenges for the Arab states. With that in mi nd, several public and private sector leaders are currently collaborating towards higher levels of diversification (across oil reliant countries), healthier competition, the creation of a dynamic economic environment for the private sector, strong private/public partnerships, the acceleration of entreprene urship (registering only 0.6 new firms per 1,000 working-age people, compared w ith approximately four firms in high-income countries), an established middle class, an equalized distribution of wealth, high quality educational systems, and cultures of ethical governance and high performance. Having competent leaders who are capable to navigate the aforementioned pressures will significantly help nations shape the supply and demand sides of job creation and competitiveness of the Arab workforce. Gainful reforms will pave the way to increased private-sector activity, enhanced market efficiency and sustainable em ployment that would bene fit present and future generations. Arab Leadership Against this background, public and private sector leaders have an opportunity to contribute to and be active agents in current efforts to create a business environment that nurtures and supports the creation of a knowledge economy (e.g., UAE 1% federal budget allocation to 7 support innovation, UAE national plan to promot e medical research and academia, and UAE transition to 80% e-government services by 2018). As leadership contributes significantly to building and engaging an inclusive workforce, the Arab region calls for leaders who are able to fiinfluence a group of individuals to achieve a common goalfl (Northouse, 2013, p. 5) amidst political instability, volatile economic landscape, and challenging pressures deeply affecting the Arab human capital. In response, this study wi ll examine best practices needed for the development of such leaders by drawing on the vi ews of international and business management experts. To help customize leadership development programs to suit the specific needs of Arab executives (e.g., educational background and cultu ral values), the study will investigate the variability among Arab leaders. Under these circumstances, this study argues that the design and delivery of learning and development interventions of executives have to appreciate three types of differences: (a) differences between imported Western leadersh ip models and Arab specific context; (b) differences between educational backgrounds of executives; and, (c) differences within the Arab world. The study will draw on social science research, interviews and surveys to shed light on those differences. The following section will discuss briefly the importance of examining each difference. This structure will help frame the re search questions that emerge from the study. Differences between Western and Arabic leadership models. Investigating Western practices and their relevance to local Arabic contexts will enable the examination of the universality of leadership development concepts and ways such theoretical pillars may be customized to suit the learning of Arab leader s. Expatriation is costly and temporary. The importance of cultivating a pipeline of Arab l eaders cannot be underestimated in the face of present and future challenges. Arab leaders are now asked to adap t their behaviors, lead their 8 institutions in a globalized market, build high performing teams using Western best-practices, and engage their local workforce by staying auth entic to their cultural roots. The predominant scholarship tackling effective leadership deve lopment programs advance Western leadership models (Al-Dabbagh & Assaad, 2010). While drawing on Western practices may seem reasonable to positively impact organizational pe rformance, several studies have found that cultural incongruence between Western approaches a nd Arab culture may have been attributed to cultural clashes, misunderstandings, and dise ngagement of employees (Ali, 2010; Branine & Pollard, 2010; Gillespe & Riddle, 2005). The tension between addressing Western best practices while maintaining local traditions exists globally. As such, the aim of this study is to identify which modern leadership devel opment practices can be embedded within leadership concepts traditional to Islamic and ethnic tribal cultures . Finding a balance or a way to integrate both worldviews (Abdallah & al-Homoud, 2001; Sarayrah, 2004) is vital and currently unresolved in many Arab countries, particularly in the public sector, where leaders are challenged to attain stable footing and deliver noteworthy results (Mameli, 2013). In his prominent book, Culture™s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2001), Geert Hofstede explains how cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings, conflic ts and wars. Hofstede quotes Pascal, writing, fiVérité au deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au delàfl (There are truths on this side of the Pyrenees that are falsehood on the other) (Pascal, 1671, p.74). In support, Richard Nisbett, in his book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently – and Why (2003), argues that social practices dictate individuals ™ worldviews, which in turn promote certain thought process; and the thought processes both warrant the type of worldviews and endorse the social practices. His research has led him to conclude that such homeostatic relationships have 9 implications for understanding how individuals fro m different cultures think and the effective educational strategies that suit different people. As the world is flattening and the Arab region undergoes rapid economic growth and political unrest, leaders, reluctant to lose their cultural heritage, have to embrace change. However, cu ltural differences take time to change and dissipate. Examining how cross-cultural Arab lead ers need to sustain and stabilize a competitive knowledge economy in a diverse region in terms of languages, ethnicities, religions, as well as turbulent political and economi c systems is a complex task (Berdrow & Evers, 2014; Osman- Gani, 2014). Studies that take the cross-cultural approach look at potential misalignment between Islamic and Western workplace cultures, performa nce-based evaluation, skills development, risk- taking to risk-averse, reflection to action, and pr eferred interaction with supervisors (Ali, 2010; Ali, Krishnan, & Kamp, 2005; Aycan, Al-Hamad i, Davis, & Budhwar, 2007). While several studies conclude that Western practices--like transformational leadersh ip (Bealer & Bhanugopan, 2014; Sheikh, Newman, & Abdul-F attah Al Azzeh, 2013) and high performance work practices (Mohammed, Mostafa, & Gould-Williams, 2014; Ra mdani, Mellahi, Guermat, & Kechad, 2014)- -have a positive impact on Arab employee satisf action and organizational performance, results also revealed that employees often feel th at local customs are ignored (Syed, Hazboun & Murray, 2014). The diversity and complexity within the regi on is mirrored in academic scholarship that continues to be fragmented, conceptual and de scriptive in nature, ma king the universality of leadership models difficult (Afiouni et al., 2014). Similarly, Zahra (2011) contends that the vast majority of the leadership development resear ch on the region remains anecdotal, case study based, normative, and conceptual (Afiouni, Ruël, & Schuler, 2013). In fact, research on leadership for MENA countries has been scarce (Common, 2011; Leung & Bond, 2004; Smith, 10 Achoui, & Harb, 2006). As such, it is clear that a focused empirical study encompassing several Arab countries which represent the three regions (i.e., Gulf, Levant, and North Africa) is required to unpack effective, Arab-centered understandings of the topic in these settings (Mameli, 2013). This study will gauge the views of international business management experts working in the Arab region to synthesize the standards for the design of leadership development programs specific to the Arab context. Differences between educational backgrounds of executives. According to the World Bank enterprise data, less than 18% of firm s in the MENA region offered training to their employees, with 39.4% of staff receiving formal training from their companies (compared to 52.6% globally). A much smaller portion of this pe rcentage targets developing Arab leaders who are usually faced with a choice to either enroll in leadership programs imported from the West or traditional Arabic leadership programs. The choi ce between the two types (Western vs. Arabic) of programs is linked to the fact that educati on in the Arab world has been long influenced by both an Islamic worldview and a colonial secula r approach to learning and development. As a result, Arab education has been marked by two di stinct educational systems that have evolved separately and independently. On one side, higher education and business schooling follow modern methodologies and concepts in teachi ng dominant in Wester n education (Cook, 1999). The effectiveness of importing such Western models to train and develop Arab learners is yet to be determined. However, approaches to the de sign and delivery of learning and development programs are typically based on the assumption th at the target group will be from a Western background (Lum, 2009). In adopting such a stance, academic and corporate learning interventions run the risk of ignoring important aspects of cultural and educational differences of Arab learners. Parallel to the modern/Western pr actices, the Arab/Islamic educational institutions 11 co-existed with no interaction or convergence wi th their Western counterparts. Such traditional institutions follow didactic and teacher-c entered methodologies stemming from Islamic educational practices that value authority, respect, and absolute truth. Such conformist educational systems are facing a cr isis, attempting to preserve the cultural and religious identity of the Umma (i.e., universal Muslim community) while modernizing their practices to foster growth and openness in a rapidly globalized world (Cook, 1999). Across several dimensions (e.g., autonomy, consensus, truth, etc.) Western and Islamic educations are at extreme ends, resulting in tensions over what, how, and when subjects need to be taught. Cognizant of this tension, scholars and practitioners in non-Western countries, often in collaboration with researchers from the West, ar e exploring ways education can be modernized without being Westernized-- a pr ocess of integration without assimilation (DeGagne & Dirkx, 2009). One important theme that arises from such efforts is understanding the difference between Western and non-Western perspectives of learni ng, which may provide a logical and empirical basis for some of the constructs underpinning how executives prefer to learn, depending on their educational background (i.e., whether they have attended an Arabic or Western curriculum in K- 12 school years). According to Merriam and Associates (2007) , learning and knowing are often deeply intertwined with culture and religion; conceptions of learning are rooted in a way of life rather than being delegated to educational institutions; and learning and development are generally conceptualized in a way different from dominant Western views, including the overall purpose of schooling, best-practices, learners™ characteristics, barriers to participation, and concepts of leadership. As such, it would be expected to find differences in learning and cultural beliefs 12 between executives who have been exposed to an Arab curriculum and those who have attended schooling built on Western curricula. Effective leadership development demands that executives™ educational background and cultural values are well-understood to guarantee that the concepts, linguistic nuances and messages intended by the teacher are cognitively and emotionally relevant to learners within the context of their own society (Hofstede, 2001). Bond (1992) cautioned against using Western procedures with Asian audiences, contending that the occupational culture of intercultural trainers is founded on the use of Western, main ly U.S., practices. Bhawuk and Triandis (1996) stress the particular understanding of cultural differences and the necessity of learning the symbols, the heroes, and the rituals of a particul ar culture; that is, while instructors may never share the values and beliefs of their students, they may at least intelle ctually grasp how their values differ. To date, the limited number of studi es still struggles to ex amine Arab executives™ learning preferences and how they vary across their educational background. In this study, executives™ educational background will, therefore, be inspected as an independent variable. Findings will shed light on how the schooling system that executives have attended relate to their learning needs and preferred instructional strategies. Differences within the Arab world. The emerging field of cultural psychology posits culture at the center of its theories and research about learning. The central tenet of cultural psychology is that one cannot understand individuals without understanding their culture. They argue that mind and culture are inseparable and mutually constitutive. Shweder (1991) succinctly defines cultural psychology as fithe study of th e way cultural traditions and social practices regulate, express, and transform the human psyc he, resulting less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and emotionfl (p. 72). Cultural psychologists study not 13 only the differences between groups but also the reciprocal relationship between individuals™ thoughts, behaviors, and culture. They contend that replicating cross-cultural research settings raises important questions about the universality of constructs and their established meanings in cognitive or behaviorism theories (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001). As such, examining how approaches to learning and concepts of leadership vary across the 17 Arab countries in three Arab geographical regions may help design cultu rally sensitive training programs that address differences within the Arab world. The following section starts with defining the construct of culture and how it was operationalized in this study. The subsequent section discusses the importance of examining the relationship between culture (national values and geographical region) and executives™ learning preferences. The construct of culture. Taras, Rowney, and Steel (2009) conducted an extensive review of the methods by which culture was defined and measured by psychology, anthropology, business, and management scholars. They found 121 different instruments used to quantify the concept of culture. Based on Taras et al.™s review, three important considerations frame the study of culture. First, despite the larg e number of instruments, a gene ral consensus about what culture is and is not cannot be found. Culture has been co ined with its surface leve l fiobjectivefl artifacts and its behaviors expressed by less visible fisubjectivefl values (Triandis, 1972, p.4). Second, culture is shared by a group and distinguishes the members of one group from another. Culture determines the uniqueness of a human group and is different from personality and identity, which are associated with the individual. Lastly, cu lture is relatively stable. In general, societal norms shifts will be gradual unless outside infl uences are aggressively violent (e.g., military conquest, deportation, loss of language or independence). There are many definitions of culture, 14 but the essence of all of the definitions is crystallized in VandenBos™s (2007) description of culture as fi1. the distinctive customs, values, beliefs, knowledge, art and language of a society or community. 2. the characteristic attitudes and behaviors of a particular group within society, such as profession, social class, or age groupfl (p. 250). Another prominent definition of culture was construed by King (2002) as fia sense of pe oplehood and commonality derived from kinship patterns, a shared historical past, common e xperiences, religious affiliations, language or linguistic commonalities, shared values, attitude s and perceptions, modes of expression and identityfl (p.89). According to Taras et al. (2009), one of their review™s most prominent conclusions is the degree of similarity between th e instruments and procedur es utilized to assess culture. Further, they assert that the majority of instruments resembled Hofstede and Bond™s (1984) study and Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders™ (1990) research on national cultures in the international corporate workplace. Long before Hofstede, social scientists Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) and Margaret Mead (1901-78) argued th at all societies face the same problems, and that it is only their response to those problems that differen tiate them. In 1954, Inkeles and Levinson attempted to identify four basic proble m areas common to all societies: relationship with authority; conception of self as shaped by the individual and society; an individual™s concept of masculinity and femininity; and ways of dealing with conflict. National cultures. Building on Inkeles and Levinson™s findings, Hofstede™s (2001) work as a social psychologist, starting in 1967, focused on over 50,000 employees working in the International Business Machines Corporation (commonly referred to as IBM) in 50 countries. Hofstede identified five independent dimensions of national cultu re differences: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, mascul inity versus femininity, and long-term orientation. 15 Power distance relates to the problem of human inequality and the degree to which members of a society accept hierarchical differences. Uncertainty avoidance refers to a society™s stress level in the face of an unknown future. Individualism is the degree to which individuals are integrated into and tied to groups. Individualism is the opposite of Collec tivism, which stands for a society that encourages strong and cohesive links among group members from birth onwards. Masculinity is characterized as the dominance of fiego goals,fl such as achievement, competition, and assertive behavior in a society. Masculinity represents a culture in which social gender roles are clearly distinct with men playing assertive roles and focus on material success. In contrast , women are expected to symbolize modesty, tenderness, and concern to the quality of life. Long-term orientation embodies a culture that fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, particularly forward thinking, perseverance and thrift. Short-term orientation represents a society that promotes values attached to the past and present, such as respect for tradition, preservation of fiface,fl and performing social obligations As the most widely cited typology for desc ribing national cultures, Hofstede™s (2001) work has received criticism regarding the validity of its constructs, methods and limitations of its studies. This reaction is probably due to some extent to the domi nating influence this work has exerted and attention it has received. Nonetheless, any application of Hofstede™s work and recommendations must be carefully considere d. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) surmise that while every group or category of people carries a set of common mental programs that form its culture, measurement of cu lture does not imply that everyone in a given society is 16 programmed in the same way. Statements about cu lture do not describe individual differences or within-country variances; they are all general and relative and represent nations (thus the use of ficountry/nation index or dimensionfl). As applications of Hofstede™s cultural dimens ions in education have often demonstrated the influence of cultural values on approaches for learning, examining how national values associate with Arab executives™ approaches to learning may help inform the design of culturally responsive leadership development programs. For example, Yamazaki™s (2005) re-analysis of four empirical studies conducted by Boyatzis and Mainemelis (2000), Yamazaki and Kayes (2005), McMurray (1998), and Kolb and Fry (1975) found that members in a strong uncerta inty avoidance culture possess a feeling of anxiety or fear when facing unfamiliar risks, devian t ideas, or tension with others. In his view, their primary concern is to avoid failure and mi stakes which would jeopardize their chance for success. He further exemplified the Japanese culture as having a strong uncertainty avoidance. In contrast, American culture is described as havi ng a much lower uncertainty avoidance level. Through the individualist-collectivist lenses, Hsu (1985), Pratt (1991) and Triandis (1989) provided evidence that the conception of ‚self™ discloses possible explanation for the variation of learning preferences as a result of variance in cultu re. Because ‚the self™ is more associated with ‚the group™ in collectivist cultures (Triandis, Bris lin & Hui, 1998), Chinese collectivist societies may encour age individuals to learn through listening and advise people to adopt a neutral or middle stance throughout the proce ss. In this context, knowledge is external to the learner and is transmitted from the expert into the learner whos e uniqueness and creativity may be suppressed (Taylor, 1990). 17 Geographical regions. In addition to the common mental programming that constitutes national cultural values (i.e., aligned to one™s country), Hofstede et al. (2010) asserts that each individual carries various layers of mental programming corres ponding to different levels of cultures, such as regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliation level and gender, generational, social class and organizational levels. Va lues, norms, and practices from these levels are not necessarily in harmony. However, powerful fo rces of integration (e.g., one dominant national language, political syst em, economic-technological development, or educational system) enable regions to form a developed whole based on a significant body of citizens with common mental programming. It is those general common mental programs that make it easier to anticip ate people™s behavior in a new situation. Noticeably, two main regions in the Middl e East and North Africa (MENA) portray distinct visible cultural norms and practices: MENA Asia or Levant (Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria) and MENA Gulf (United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen). The Gulf and Levant regions anecd otally vary not only across their economic, social, and political makeup, but also regardi ng their religious and wealth composition. Such differences may help us speculate how people in each region approach learning. On one hand, the Levant-- or MENA Asia-- typically has a higher level of democratization, a more pronounced religious diversity, and service-based economies. On the ot her hand, MENA Gulf countries export oil, are ruled by monarchies, and are characterized by a homogenous population of Muslims. The economy of its non-oil exporting MENA Levant neighbors is not nearly so buoyant, and the long-term economi c prospects are less predictable. The chasm between the economic stability and wealth of the two regions, combined w ith their differing cultural and religious characteristics, constitutes an intriguing nexus for a comparative study. If we presume 18 that the dissimilarities between regions affects behaviors and norms, we may also predict that such cultural consequences have implications on the ways societies partake learning. In particular, I expect that people living in the Gulf would be more attuned to traditional ways of learning. Conversely, I anticipate that citizens living in the Levant region would be more inclined to learn using modern ways of instruction. As such, this study aims to examine whether participants perceive leadership development practices differently based on their geographical location. In a study that illustrates such regional differences, Ralston, Egri, Riddle, Butt, Dalgic, and Brock (2012) investigated the cultural values of managers in Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, which th ey cluster into a group they called Greater Middle East (GME). The authors studied three value dimensions: collectivism, individualism and universalism. Specifically, th ey investigated the relevance of macro-level influences such as past sociocultural (historical) attributes and present business ideological influences (economic-technological developm ent level, political system, level of democratization) on managerial values. Ralston et al. (2012), found that Arab Islamic nations (UAE, Algeria, and Egypt) scored higher on the collectivism dimension than non-Arabic countries (Pakistan and Turkey). Religious di versity (Lebanon and Israel) yielded less collectivism. In a previous study, Ralston et al. (2009) found that the level of economic development predicted the manageri al ethics in non-Greater Middle Easter countries (as defined by G8). However, they assert that this relationship was not supported in the study undertaken in 2012. Ralston et al. (2012) surmis e their data demonstrates that the GME is not a homogeneous entity, and that the reasons for this heterogeneity are not clear. Hence, levels of democratization 19 (as well as other aspects of political systems) may also need to be examined to explain variance among managers™ cultural values. It is therefore vital for this study to investigate how the current socioeconomic and political landscape, the rapid change and unrest, may affect the role and expectations of Arab leaders in both the public and private sector. Culture will be examined from both perspectives: national values as operationalized by Hofstede and regional differences as a product of geographical clustering. The relationship between culture (country Hofstede™s index and geographical region) and Arab learners™ views of classroom-based leadership development programs will be investigated. To establish the ground for the proposed leadership development model that addresses the aforementioned cultural differences (i.e., re gional, national, and educational background), the research questions for this study will seek to (a) identify what training experts consider as best practices for classroom-based Arab leadersh ip development programs, (b) examine how 1521 leaders from 17 Arab countries respond to the best practices highly recommended by the experts, and (c) highlight how executives™ backgrounds relate to their learning preferences. The study will specifically investigat e how cultural dimensions, as defined by Hofstede (2010), geographical regions, and demogr aphics relate to executives™ learning preferences (e.g., executives™ views on various aspects of leadership development curricula, instructional methodologies, leadership competencies, motiv ation enablers, barriers to participation, instructors™ characteristics and learning environmen t). Findings will inform theory on the role of Arab culture as it intersects with executives™ approaches to learning a nd leadership. Practical recommendations will be put forward to design cu lturally responsive leadership interventions. 20 As in all studies of teaching and learning, the most that can be expected is the identification of some genera l connections between independent variables and outcomes. Although, educators and policy makers would pref er to find tight connections that provide accurate predictions of outcomes, variability in all human learning makes this impossible. This study will reveal some relationships that exist between region, nationality, culture, demographics, and executives™ learning preferen ces, which should be helpful as policy makers and educators design leadership development in terventions. It should be noted that while approaches to learning and leadership will be pr oposed, individual executives are expected to vary in their response. The next chapter will distill literature that examined leadership professional programs across both Arabic and Western scholarly publications. Chapter three illustrates the design of the research study and elaborates on the statistical methods used to analyze the data. Chapter four presents evidence for the differences found across individuals and regions. Evidence is based on experts and executives™ views related to classroom based leadership development programs. Chapter five delineates implications for theory, res earch and practice. In pa rticular, that chapter will propose a conceptual model that highlights va riability in learning preferences of executives across the Arab world. Throughout, the term fiWestern erfl refers to people of European culture (e.g., European American). Westernization should not be confused with modernization, which is often defined as industrialization (increased occupational structure, wealth, social mobility, literacy and urbanization) (Huntington, 1971). Both China and the United Arab Emirates are becoming more modern but still far from becomi ng Western. The term fiArabfl is used in this document whenever an individual from the MENA region is concerned. Even though subcultures across the MENA region are not identical (e.g., Gulf versus Leva nt), people are exposed to 21 similar social, political and cultu ral influences (e.g., language and tribal norms). In some general respects, the Arab cultures are similar to one another and different from Western countries. I apologize in advance for the labeling and hope that the broad brush term fiA rabfl is justified in the context of this study. 22 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE Methods of Review This study has been conducted to offer insights on three main themes: (a) best practices for leadership development according to experts™ views, (b) differences and agreements between experts™ recommendations and ex ecutives™ preferences, and (c) th e relationship between learning approaches of Arab executives and their background (national culture, geographical region, and demographics). The literature on leadership de velopment programs, which I summarize below, seeks to understand how Western and Arab scholarship addresses leader ship development. The literature relevant to this review is found in many discip lines related to educational psychology, cultural psychology, adult learning, and business management development. Five broad categories of research are included: theoretical or foundational books relevant to understanding the relationship between culture a nd learning, previous literature reviews of leadership development, empirical research fr om cross-cultural and comparative studies that addresses teaching or learning leaders or managers in both contex ts (Western and Arabic), policy and management consulting reports, and discussion and white papers from established research institutes. Together, the literat ure provides the theoretical framework for this study, identifies adult learning principles that underpin professional development, background and context for leadership in the Arab world, outlines the relationship between culture and learning, and distills best practices for training from huma n resource scholars and practitioners. To examine the literatu re related to the first research question, which identifies best practice recommendations made by experts, this review provides a comprehensive perspective on best practices related to classroom-based leadership in both the Western and Arabic contexts. To explore literature directly target ed at practitioners and corporate organizations, this review seeks 23 to understand leadership development from various sources: adult learning, industry or discipline specific journals (e.g., Engineering Education ), technical reports (governmental and American management associations), and handbooks rela ted to cross-cultural, acculturation and intercultural psychology, learning needs assessment s, training best practices for practitioners, and human resource development. The majority of studies base their findings on industry business practices often originating from companies that operate on a global scale (multinational companies, or MNCs). Literature addressing best practices in the Arab context often draw on Islamic practices. Publications written in Arabic were synthesized from various sources: the Quran, Islamic Hadith (i.e., pr ophetic traditions), Al-Azhar University, the Library of Alexandria, and handbooks originating from the MENA region (e.g., Al Suwaidan, 2002). To scan the research related to the second question, which compares experts™ recommendations to executives™ actual learning pref erences, I looked at literature that discusses learning preferences related to classroom-based leadership deve lopment programs, particularly domains linked to learning activities, leadership competencies, motivation enablers and barriers, instructor™s characteristics, and the physical learning environment. Literature on Arab leadership development, which was written in English, take s a decidedly Western bias when it comes to researching employee training. No research has examined both the experts in the field of leadership and executives as learners across the MENA region. Available studies often used the same language to describe different leadership concepts and employed various measurements to validate the same theoretical constructs, making it difficult to build a comprehensive synthesis of what is best for executives according to experts and determine what executives themselves want. In regards to the learning environment (i.e., physi cal space of the classroom) literature, the field is still emerging, and most of what was included in this review is extracted from articles 24 published by architecture and design firm s (e.g., Dugdale, 2009) as well as few academic references (e.g., Burruss, 2011). To distill the literature linked to the relationship between executives™ background (geography, national culture and demographics) a nd their learning preferences, I mainly drew on cross-cultural and comparative studies. Research contrasted Western practices to either Arab local traditions or Islamic practices highlighting a mismat ch between both approaches without clear directions on how to tackle the schism. Overall, these studi es indicate that some level of Western training and leadership practices, when combined with some traditional aspects of Arab work attitudes, should be employed in the Arab world to improve organizational performance and employee engagement. Those studies focuse d on only few countries in the MENA region. Furthermore, to examine aspect s related to the socioeconomic and political landscape of the MENA region, the review also included policy reports (e.g., World Economic Forum & OECD, 2011), white papers (Frankel, 2012), and di scussion reports (e.g., Kinninmont, 2015). The primary sources of literature were journa ls that directly address learning, culture, and leadership models, including Journal of Educational Psychology, Psychological Review, Educational Management, Applied Psychology: An International Review, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, American Psychol ogist, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, International Review of Education, International Studies of Management & Organization, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journa l, Life Science Journal, Adult Education Quarterly, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of International Business Studies, International Business Review, The International Journal of Human Resour ce Management, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, and Journal of International Management. Those journal searches 25 followed several alterations and combination of keywords in Google Scholar and promising citations in bibliographies of key articles. It should be noted that this review does not cover every publication that tackles the main themes of this study; doing so seemed impossible, given the reach of articles across the globe and disciplines as well as the preliminary state of research on Arab leadership development. Expert Recommendations of Best Practice Principles for Leadership Development Research question one asks what leadership development program experts working in Arab nations believe to be best practices. Here, I review Western- and Ar abic- centric literature to provide a basis for identifying where the beliefs of these Arab nation experts both resemble and depart from the broader literature on best pr actices. It is worth noting that the majority of literature related to leadership development, which is concerned with best practice or benchmarking, is driven by corporate and pr ivate sector efforts to improve employee performance (McCauley, 2008) and rarely employ s the typical research methodologies used in social science. The following section summarizes literature around experts™ recommendations of best practice principles related to aspects of classroom base d leadership development, such as learning activities, instructor™s characteristics, learning environment, leadership competencies, motivation enablers and barriers to participation. Western best practices. This section captures findings related to best practices suggested by leadership development program experts in Western classrooms. W hile the literature identified many best practices for Western classrooms, adult l earning figured centrally in a number of discussions around leadersh ip and professional development. Until 50 years ago, learning referred solely to practices taking place in elemen taries, secondary schools, and universities. With the development of adult learning and the concept of lifelong learning, the 26 field of learning in adulthood has emerged as a study, practice, and an important foci for research and theory. The concept of andragogy (Knowles, 1980) has been appropriated by many scholars and practitioners to refer to differences stemming from working with adults. A significant difference between childhood and adult learning is that learning in adulthood is voluntary (Johnstone & Rivera, 1965). In other words, adult learners vote with their feet. Further, adult learning is largely directed toward preparing learners for work or developing their current professional skills. If individuals find that their professional development course, for instance, does not effectively address their needs, interests, or ways of learning, they will simply not participate or drop out before they complete the program™s goals. Life experiences and developmental differences delineate learning in adulthood as a separate field from learning in childhood or youth. Knowles (1980) argues that several assumptions demarcate andragogy from earlier forms of learning: adults are capable of be ing self-directed, and their readiness to learn is closely tied to their social roles; adults seek immediacy of application fo r what they learn; and adults™ life experiences serve as a rich reservoir for learning. Learning activities. Based on how adults learn, experiential learning theories emerged as one of the most common and effective methods for developing leaders in the corporate sector. As Keeton and Tate (1978) argue, experiential learning emphasizes filea rning in which the learner is directly in touch with the real ities being studied. It is contrasted with learning in which the learner only reads about, hears about, talks about, or writes about these realities but never comes into contact with them as part of the learning processfl (as cited in Beard & Wilson, 2013, p. 4). Based on the foundational work of John Dewey, Malcolm Knowles, David Kolb, David Boud, and John Mezirow, it is generally understood that experiential learning involves internal and facilitated reflection, formal training, info rmal experiences, incident-based learning, 27 interpersonal communication, and some iterati on of action learning and problem solving (Marsick, Nicolaides, & Watkins, 2014). Experiential learning emerges across several disciplines, such as adult education theory, rehabilitation, therapy, corporate training and personnel development, outdoor development and adventure, and recreation-based training and development. Each uses a different approach to immerse learners in the experience. Learning activities designed with experien tial learning in mind typically include role playing scenarios based on workplace realities--rehearsing situations, role reversal, games, puzzle solving, team building, simulations model building and other non- work based activities. The purpose of such activities serves to encourage learners to fiusefl experience for learning (Fenwick, 2001). The argument is that traditional learning, with the teacher lecturing and participants regurgitating facts without deeper involvement, does not produce meaningful learning outcomes (Beard & Wilson, 2013). Overall, the literature that tackles best pr actices in leadership development focuses primarily on the need to both a pply knowledge in the workplace and evaluate the effectiveness of programs to promote business results, rather than gauging what learners might actually prefer. This may indicate a bias in th e industry literature; since several companies are ultimately motivated by profit and driven by competition, th e efficacy of their leadership programs leans towards post-program results (performance evalua tion and return on investment from training interventions). For example, a study conducted by the Am erican Management Association (2005) provides an overview of challenges and trends facing leadership today and explores best practices for leadership development (i.e. t echnology, globalization, organizational structures, and a diverse, world-wide talent pool). It outlines key learning competencies and summarizes 28 best practices through a fictionalized comp any based on a survey of 1,573 executives and managers as well as interview data and comprehensiv e survey data. While it is called a figlobalfl survey, the participants were mostly from th e U.S. and Europe. This study focuses on the prevalence of development activities such as mentoring sessions, experiential opportunities, online learning (hybrid approach), 360-degree feedback, action learning projects and post-training reinforcements to highlight the activities that best suit leadership development courses. The American Productivity and Quality Center (2006) investigated selected organizations (e.g., PricewaterhouseCoopers, Cisco Systems, PepsiCo, Caterpillar, and Washington Group International) that are commonly recognized for their leadership development practices. Best practice organizations use approaches and tools that help build executive talent through experiential and action learning, executive roundtables, technologies for learning (interactive activities, teleconferencing, and intranet), instructor-facilitated classroom learning, case-based studies, communities of practice, special projects , psychological exercises to stimulate personal reflection, and experiential learning. In its case study on Cisco Systems, the study refers to the value of embedding coaching and group workshops in leadership development as well as linking skills to the workplace context. It also points out the need to in tegrate its Global Leader Program for managers who work outside the U.S. McCauley (2008) found that experiential and action learning constitutes a critical component of leadership development. Leaders, she claims, need to focus on fiindividual and collective learning as they work on the projects, often guided by a coach who encourages reflection, dialogue, and feedbackfl (p. 42). She contends that organizations make use of experiential and action learning as a developmental activity to promote organizational change initiative or as part of an ongoing tool to instill a culture of organizational learning (Marsick & 29 O™Neil, 1999; Dotlich & Noel, 1998). She concludes that more research is needed to better understand the impact of action le arning on leader development. Instructor™s characteristics. In this context, an educator™s role is to facilitate the construction of knowledge, critically recall participants™ prior experience, and value adult learners™ voices. The facilitator instigates (i.e., engages learners experientially), coaches (e.g., builds trust and creates a safe environment while correcting u ndesirable outcomes), and is capable to judge, assess, and give credit to people™s newly acquired experiences (Fenwick, 2001). In support, Tootoonchi, Lyons and Hagen ( 2002) conducted a review of literature and a research study with 117 business students to distill the most salient instructor™s qualities for effective management programs. They contend th at participants overwhelmingly endorse the use of real world scenarios in class followed by open discussions as the most effective approaches that influence their learning. Through the self-administered survey s, respondents also identified the characteristics of an instructor that would promote their development, including communication skills, knowledge of subject matter, attitude, fair ness, and general personality. The authors assert that such findings are consistent with other relevant literature, and they emphasize that 21st-century instructors need to be equipped with additional skills, such as the ability to integrate technology, to effectively mode l ways that bridge the generational digital gap. Learning environment. The design of a learning environment--both the physical elements that constitute a classroom and the fee ling and behaviors that trainees bring to a space-- ultimately affect how students learn (La Marca, 2010). This section summarizes literature that tackles the learning environment, including literature that analyzes both the physical space and course materials of training programs. Drawing on experiential learning th eories, popular studies that address the setup of training environments contend that professional development 30 interventions need to create educative experiences that allow two key dimensions: continuity (relating prior experience with new knowledge) and interaction (actively interacting with his or her environment) (Dewey, 1938). Based on such a ssumptions, practitioners have endeavored to design learning environments conducive to reflecti on, social interaction, application of theory through simulation, authentic and concrete act ivity, immersive experience, problem-based learning, emotional engagement, situated lear ning and dialogue both inside and outside traditional classroom spaces (Fenwick, 2001). In response to those dimensions, course ma terials need to warrant the opportunity for learners to be involved in their education by using tools that allow reflection (e.g., personal journals), analytical thinking (e.g., diagrams), conceptual understanding before or after the activity (e.g., readings), connecting theory to practice (e.g., books on workplace best practices or industrial implication of knowledge), and active problem solving and decision making (e.g., flipchart and case studies handouts for team work ). Learning materials are more often saved on mobile, removal storage disks and accessible 24/ 7 on the web. Course materials are created to cater to various types of learning styles such as visual learners, auditory learners, reading/ writing-preference learners, and kinesthetic/tact ile learners. Attuning learning elements and pedagogical tools to suit learners™ preferences draws on several cognitive science studies and such learning styles theories as Kolb™s model, Peter Honey and Alan Mumford™s model, and Neil Fleming™s model (Stahl, 2002; Holden, 2010). In spite of the popularity of matc hing instructional tools to enhance learning, learning styles have been criticized. Such criticism has pushed scholars and educators to transcend the debate an d advocate an eclectic approach that is problem- or practitioner-centered. Pedagogues or instructors in this case are in control, able to figrabfl the 31 tools based on the need of the situation and challenge the students to le arn in different ways (Fenwick, 2001, p.55). Physical spaces also necessitate the s upport of multiple learning styles, a hybrid experience, web-based access to content, diffuse vs. centralized distribution of functions, comfort, experimentation, access to off-site learning, convenience, and collaborative work (Dugdale, 2009). Since this field is still emerging, very few studies have researched corporate training classroom environments and fewer have measured their effectiveness on learning. The majority of studies deal ing with learning landscapes are conceptual in nature and focus on the design future and sustainable schools, higher education institutions, and libraries. They stress the significance of such features as light, acoustics, colors, ergonomic considerations, visual access, connection to nature, adaptability, health and ecological properties of buildings, mobile and media displays in human-centered learning de signs (Gee, 2006). Burruss (2001), for example, observes how lighting, temperature, type and positi on of furniture, acoustics, and surface color and texture impact the comfort level of learners, which in turn affects their overall learning experience. He also encouraged adult learning spaces that endorse active learning and social interaction. Similarly, Beard and Wilson (2006) examined how both indoor and outdoor spaces facilitate or hinder learning. A particular emphasis in training programs links outdoors spaces to development of authentic leadership skills thro ugh activities like obstacle courses, sailing, hiking, and survival training. The training curriculum in this case gravitates around team building, collaboration, and problem-solving. The architectural firm DEGW (now known as Strategy Plus) used the term filearning landscapefl to encompass informal and formal settings, multipurpose and specialized spaces, and physical and virtual spaces (Dugdale, 2009). The DEGW strategy, like other campus planners in 32 the 21st century, increasingly adapted campus spaces to be learner-focused, promoting hands-on and collaborative learning, infusing technology seamlessly, and situa ting design in the context of the university, academic unit, department, or stude nt service. The firm, interestingly, contended that the learner has to be involved in the design process so that his or her preferences are incorporated into the final landscape. Leadership competencies. With regard to classroom content, executive education curriculum designers draw on several models that govern leadership development (e.g., Goldstein & Ford, 2001; London, 2002; see also Hrivnak, Reichard, & Riggio, 2009). These studies suggest that educators must assess each participant™s needs and background to customize the program™s content to suit each learner™s context (in contrast to adopting a universal approach for what it means to be a leader). Western leader ship models include (but are not limited to) trait theory, the path-goal theory, leader-member exchange, team leadership theory, servant leadership, transformational lead ership, transactional and authentic leadership (Mameli, 2013). Principally, modern leadership theories are ba sed on fiprogressive Western business values-those values feted by business ethics as a discipline: transparency, accountability, consultation, tolerance and equityfl (Neal & Finlay, 2015, pg. 39). Best practices in the Arab classroom. Unlike Western scholarship, literature around leadership development in the Arab world lacks a clear and specific identification of the golden standard. Instead, authors draw on the Islamic philosophy or Western-centric pedagogical practices. The studies are scarce and limited by th eir narrow focus on one or two countries from the MENA region. Learning activities. Ali (2010) explored potential challenges to human resource management (HRM) in predominantly Muslim countries, acknowledging that Western human 33 resources practices are the most prevalent in thes e countries. He proposes that the application of apprenticeship (which encompasses shadowing, training, mo nitoring and testing prior to taking on new professional roles), as per Islamic philosophy, offers a useful framework for the development of Arab leaders. Branine and Pollard (2010) conducted a review of literature to outline challenges for studying HRM in the Islamic world, including the prevalence of Western HRM practices and the tendency to group all Islamic count ries together, despite the strong local tribal culture of many Arab countries. The study emphasizes the need to fully understand the principles of Islamic management and recommends valuing face-to-f ace personal interactions and considering the power associated with older age/status/experts in the development of talent. Gillespie and Riddle (2005) investigated the effectiveness of case-based teaching methods in business education in the ME NA region. The authors discuss the cultural incongruence caused by Western-centric approaches to case-based instruction. They argue that case-based instruction may pose a challenge to Arab learners, who are accustomed to rote learning and often lack the synthesis and evaluation skills required to analyze case studies. In spite of such a challenge, the study encouraged training providers to integrate case study into the class activities. Also, the authors recommend taking into consideration the local cultural values and norms by enticing casewriters to incorporate locally releva nt real scenar ios and equipping Arab leaders with skills needed to challe nge and debate the content of case-studies. Reflecting on two case studies in the Arab world, Al-Dabbagh and Assaad (2010) discuss the challenges associated with leadership develo pment. They contend that there are two general themes that mark leadership development in the Arab world. First, leadership development practices need to prioritize leadership devel opment over leader development. That is, the 34 leadership development programs currently in place focus more on the personal competencies that allow a person to behave in a certain way, rather than focusing on transforming the relationships between people. Therefore, the challenge regionally is to understand and conceptualize relational approaches to leader ship development, rather than focusing on individual approaches. Second, in defining the pu blic good, there needs to be a precise definition of who the public is, and what the public need is, conceptualizing the public good in a local, regional and global context. Currently, fipublicfl refers only to nationals and precludes other members of the community living in the sa me country (Al-Dabbagh & Assaad, 2010, p. 12). Thus, by only selecting students belonging to a certain religious sect, tribal affiliation and ethnic background, the leadership development program may not be effective in addressing how aspiring leaders are able to reconcile sometime s conflicting forces that exist within local, regional and global contexts (Al-Dabbagh & Assaad, 2010). The study proposes a number of recommendations for advancing leadership de velopment regionally. One of which includes a practical suggestion to ficulturally immersefl (p. 14) leadership trainers in the Arab world prior to the delivery of programs. The collaboration betw een international leader ship experts (program exporters) and local leadership providers (program importers) will help contextualize perspectives and leverage knowledge from both Western and Arab worlds. Al-Husan, A-Hussan and Perkins (2014) conducted a longitudinal case study of Human Resource reform initiatives in three multinational companies based in Jordan. The study examined knowledge transfer processes from Fr ench parent companies to local Jordanian managers. The authors concluded that the develo pment of subsidiary managers is mediated through fisocially rich communication focused on trust-building, semantic fit and experiential learningfl (p. 248). In particular, it is vital to equip these manage rs with a shared HRM syntax 35 (language) and common semantics (interpretation capability) (Car lile, 2002) to bridge the psychic boundaries that exist during business acquisitions in the Middle East. Culpin and Scott (2012) discuss a leadership experiment that a manager in the United Arab Emirates adopted to outline how perceived behavior and culture change as a result of a unique intervention (p. 6). To gain a greater understanding both of himself and his immediate team, the experiment necessitated that the mana ger swap roles with his subordinates. Throughout the iterations, executive coaches mentor the mana ger and the team. Anecdotal records show that even though the experiment faced resistance with in the organization, the study subjects gained wide-ranging positive attitudinal effects, such as added levels of confidence, trust, and appreciation between staff. McKinsey & Company (2015), an American multin ational management consulting firm , identified a set of best practices that its cons ultants integrate in leadership training programs offered across the Middle East. Those are very similar to Western models for leadership development and include interac tive e-learning modules, peer coaching, experiential and action learning, 360 feedback, role-play, and reflection activities. Leadership competencies. The following section summarizes literature examining experts™ views on the leadership competencies that should be taught in Arab executive education programs. The content of leadership programs should typically develop and instill a set of leadership competencies that repr esent qualities of an effective l eader, are relevant to the Arab culture, and responsive to the needs of business and political unrest. Models to define leadership skills or to artic ulate what makes an Arab an effective leader are mainly influenced by Islamic and/or modern practices. Although author itarian styles typical of Arabic leadership models seem to dampen the performance and efficiency of employees, they 36 impel in-group loyalty, self-group protectivene ss, belonging, and commitment, thus positively affecting employee engagement (Mameli, 2013) . Conversely, Western--or modern--practices may encourage a higher performance culture (performance, however, was largely gauged by employees™ individual perceptions) (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Ramdani, Mellahi, Guermat, & Kechad, 2014; Mohammed, Mostafa, & Gould-Williams, 2014; Cherian & Farouq, 2013) and focus on a single country, yet they neglect the Arabic customs and regional differences critical for building relationships in a collectivist society where self-group protectiveness is vital. Leadership models influenced by Islamic relig ious practices generally discuss societal, national, military, tribal, or poli tical types of leadership with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) acting as a role model for Muslim lead ers and followers. This belief is supported when God says the following about Prophet Muhammad:{And you stand an exalted standard of character.} (Al-Qalam 68: 4). Only few studies tack le business or institutional types of leadership. Al Suwaidan (2002), in his influential The Making of a Leader, which targeted Arabic executives, explains how current businesses can benefit and draw from Islamic leadership principles. He defines leadership as the process of influencing and mobilizing followers to achieve a goal. Key competencies involve a comb ination of traits (e.g., charisma, humbleness, strength/power, courage, will), competencies (interpersonal connections built on trust, loyalty, honesty, integrity, and selfless service), and skills related to control, balance, sound decision making, and strategic thinking. In addition, Soua idan claims that closeness to Allah and followers are two of the most important characteris tics of a good leader. In fact, the word Islam means to be in peaceful submission, to obey and surrender to the will of Allah and his law (i.e., the Quran). 37 To illustrate, Ali (1993) presents research on relationships between Arab culture and conceptions of leadership. Ali™s (1993) study built on the work of Hofstede (1980) to examine the relationship between decision-making styles and the global dimensions of individualism and risk-aversion. A survey of 117 Arab (predominan tly Saudi Arabian) managers revealed that individualism in a leader™s decision-making is simultaneously respected and downplayed among Arab managers. Ali reported a fipseudo-participatoryfl environment among managers and subordinates where decision-making power resides entirely with the Arab manager but is not overtly displayed. Instead, Arab managers are keen to cultivate an atmosphere of consultation and mediation in matters of direction, transition, and conflict, even when decisions in those matters have already been made. Ali referenced Is lamic and tribal influences where Arab tribal leaders have traditionally acted as mediators between aggrieved or interested parties. Leadership is perceived as practicing wisdom but is not necessarily imposed in a forceful manner. In regards to the risk aversion global dimension, the Arab executives scored low on attitude towards risk except on two issues: adherence towards predet ermined steps and being cautious in making decisions. The authors found that Arab executives traditionally believe that rules are man-made contrivances and hence inherently flexible Œ they can be bent or even broken if the situation requires. On the other hand, strong religious beliefs often give Arab executives a sense of inner strength and certainty when ma king decisions. The proclamation fi Insha Allahfl or fiGod willingfl is a reflection of their belief that the ultimate outcome of events rests with God, so their faith is their most valuable asset. The Quran also emphasizes the importance of education, lifelong learning, communal obligation to share knowledge and teacher-student relationship in Islam. Learning, at all ages, is considered sacred and ob ligatory and a form of jihad, which means struggle. In the very first 38 verse of the Qur™an, the Prophet, who was illiterate at forty years, was instructed to read: fiRead! In the name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Read! And your Lord is the most generous. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen. Has taught man that which he knew not™ (Qur™an 96:1-5). The Islamic notion of education encourages the intersection of the rational, spiritual and social dimensions of a person (Cook , 1999). Being a scholar and a teacher is valued in Islam, and the student-teache r relationship is, therefore, sacred. In another hadith, the Prophet advises a person to fibe a teacher–or be a student who studies, or be a listener who listens to people who teach. Do not fall into the fourth category: hater of the above.fl Seeking reflecting and sharing knowledge regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, is noblest of all in Islam (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Merriam et al., as a consequence, argue for the need to consider the notions of the Islamic view and their implications on learning taking into account the greater emphasis on interdependence, community concerns with learning, holistic and spiritual aspect to learning, legitimacy of informal learning, the sacr edness of the teacher/scholar, and the need to discipline oneself as one intera cts with one™s teacher. Based on these principles, leaders are compelled to learn from the Qura n, experts, and followers (Al Suwaidan, 2002). Compared to the West, leadership in Is lam focuses more on the dynamism between leader and follower and engage human feelings in the process of reaching the goals set for the group or community (AlSarhi, Salleh, Mohame d, & Amini, 2014). Other than business objectives/actions, both social and spiritual actions are linked to the performance of a leader (Kader, 1973). Leaders are required to trust, guide, protect and treat the followers fairly with justice (‚adl). However, just like their Western count erparts, Arab leaders are accountable for their decisions and actions (AlSarhi et al., 2014). Having said that, it is worth noting that even though religion plays a critical role in the day-to-day lives of Arab leaders, several studies point 39 out that the MENA region is passing through an identity crisis and challenged by applying the true work and leadership ethics of Islam (Al Suwaidan, 2002; Ali, 2010). Mameli (2013) discusses how various Western leadership theories may correspond to the MENA context or present potential synergies with the Arab leader who is tasked to advance a high performance and engagement culture. He argue s that authentic leadership requires leaders to internalize ethical and moral structure in building trust and achieving their goals. The ethical and moral base would help Arab leaders leverage their inclination to building larger in-groups, thus building ethical linkages between leaders™ actions, character, goals, power, integrity and values (Northouse, 2009). Ultimately, such co mpetencies would position leaders to better address the realities of public sector nepotism (also called wasta), fraud, waste, mismanagement, inefficiencies, and abuse (Mameli, 2013, p. 395). Similarly, Al-Dabbagh and Assaad (2010) s uggest that leaders need to deploy both internal and external competencies that enable in dividuals to raise their self-awareness and ethics as well as transform relationships between peopl e. The development of both types of abilities place leaders on a firm ground for completing their ta sks. Internal skills are a conduit to building core and much needed values, such as corru ption control, transparency, and accountability (Mameli, 2013). Networking, engagement, communi cation and cross-cultural interaction are examples of the socially driven process. Ho wever, it should be noted that studies tackling professional skills enabling leaders to drive the business (e.g., strategic goals, management during economic crisis, and fina ncial targets) were scarce. Homogeneity. Few studies explored the need to create cultural congruence between classroom-based leadership development elemen ts (e.g., language, gender of instructor and participants) and executives. Wilkins (2001) contends that it is vital that instructional language 40 mirrors the native language of pa rticipants, as language is the primary barrier to management development. He also advises that, for students from the Gulf area where gender segregation is common in schools and/or workplace, instructors need to be sensitive to challenges caused by mixed gender groups. Ali (1992) urges Arab mana gement researchers to develop theories and conceptual models that seek to understand Arab learners within the Arab context, instead of copying Western models that fifrustrate the pr ogress of Arab management thinking and may create confusionfl (p. 12). Research in the Arab world on executive educa tion is at a very early stage. Broadly, the literature suggests that effective leadership de velopment learning activities would benefit from practices such as apprenticeship, face to face interaction, the development of a global mindset, relevant case-studies, shared language/semantic s, job rotation and on the job training, and experiential learning. There seems that across several areas, Western best practices reinforces Arabic and pre-existing Islamic idea ls overlap (e.g., trait, ethical and servant leadership theories). The Arab leader has been painted as an authorita rian leader who controls the situation and uses pseudo-consultative approaches to decision making. The situation, however, is a flexible entity which may change and affect i ndividuals™ behaviors. Thus, leaders approach performance by looking holistically at both the individual and the context, and cautiously avoid confrontations and imposing their rule on followers. Accordi ng to the reviewed literature, leading teams necessitates (a) a set of quali ties (addressing personal, emotional and ethical dimensions), (b) specific skills/competencies, and (c) the involveme nt of the spiritual aspect of leadership. In regards to qualities, humbleness, honesty, selfless service (to followers and community/public good), balance, and charisma are stressed by schola rs. Further, it appears that human feelings, interpersonal connections, cultural congruence, conflict avoidance, and mediation are 41 accentuated in the Arab context (in both instructi onal strategies and leadership competencies). In regards to leadership skills, strategic thinking, problem solving and knowledge of the job/wisdom have been emphasized. Skills rela ted to driving the bottom line or business objectives have not been overtly discussed in the literature. The spir itual aspect is also valued by Islamic influenced literature, which calls for the closeness to God and using the prophet as a role mode. Regarding motivational enablers and participat ion barriers, the majority of the studies claim that findings are mostly based on students™ perceptions of what motivate them to enroll in leadership development and factors that hinder their participant. The only prominent motivation enabler covered by the Arabic lite rature is the need for leaders to always seek knowledge (life-long learning) and aspire to be knowledgeable/wise as suggested by the Islamic religion. As such, literature related to enablers and barriers will be covered under the learning preferences section. None of the studies examined best prac tices related to the learning environment. Instructor™s characteristics pos ition the mentor in a sacred pedestal, which grants power and utmost respect to the instru ctor/expert/scholar. It is worth noting that existing literature on the concept of homogeneity (inclination to collaborate with same gender participants, self-group protectiveness and affinity, and tribal/nationality affiliation) seems to increase the engagement of followers and loyalty of in-groups to their leader. Homogeneity had no counterpart in the Western review. Comparing Experts to Executives™ Views of Leadership Development Research question two asks not only what the learning preferences of Arab learners are, but also how those compare with experts' views of best practices. In this section, I examine the literature that addresses Arab ex ecutives™ learning preference a nd summarize the similarities and 42 differences between experts™ view s and actual learner preferences. In particular, I sought to investigate executives™ learning appr oaches to (a) learning activities , (b) leadership competencies (content of leadership development classroom), and (c) reas ons why adults choose to learn and barriers that prevent them from participating in learning. Learning preferences of executives. The concept of ways of knowing and learning has also been expressed as learni ng preferences, a term referring to the way people internalize and process information or stimuli from their en vironment. Scholarship around adults™ learning preferences suggests that adults™ ways of approaching learning reflect predispositions or attitudes that are either psychological in nature or shaped by the sociocultural or disciplinary environments in which they work. For example, some adults are eager to engage in hands-on, action oriented, and participatory activities typical of experiential le arning approaches to instruction, while others prefer to engage in reflective, conceptual, and lecturing types of learning activities typically aligned with didactic pedagogies. Keefe (1979) broadly defined learning preferences as ficognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environmentfl (p.4). To date, there have been more than 10 ways that learning preferences ha ve been operationalized. Perhaps the most well-known is Kolb™s (1984) learning style, which fits into his experiential learning theory. Dunn described learning style preferences as fithe conditions under which an individual is most likely to learn, rememb er, and achievefl (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1989, p. 5). Essentially, researchers who have investigated learning preferences argue that methods to design and deliver instructions ought to be congruent with indivi duals™ learning orientations. Preferred learning activities. A substantial body of writing focuses on learning styles and adopting an experiential approach to avoid the one-size-fits-all instructional approach. The 43 studies available indicate that learning orient ations vary according to and are influenced by ethnicity, national culture, and profession. For example, Heffernan, Morrison, Basu, and Sweeney (2010), investigated learning styles among Chinese and Australian students in a transnational business program. They surveyed students using the Felder and Solomon (2000) learning styles index. The study found that Australian students were more active, verbal, and sequential learners, while Chinese students were more global, less verbal, and less intuitive. The study elaborates on how such differences have implications on the modification of instructional methods. For example, for global learners, it is valuable to use teaching strategies that aid students to figrasp the total picturefl (Felder, 1993, p. 288). Contextualizing course examples and considering fiwhat iffl scenarios should also be part of the curriculum. Felder and Silverman (1988) suggest offering global learners an opportunity to solve creative problems and generate alternative solutions to work related challenges. Recent literature suggests that learning and development experts are beginning to demonstrate interest in engaging learners™ view s/preferences in the design of leadership professional curricula. For example, Coloma, Gibson, and Packard (2012) investigated middle- management training programs conducted ac ross 8 U.S. governmental organizations. 166 middle managers were involved in the design of the programs and chose to incorporate fi 360-degree feedback, individual development plans, wo rkshop sessions conducted by both professional trainers and the directors of the participating agencies, individual journaling, coaching, a book club, and intensive opportunities for dialogue and networkingfl (p. 9). The bulk of the literature that i nvestigates learning preference of Arab learners is found in cross-cultural research and considers the proc ess by which Arab culture affects students™ approaches to learning. Research on intercultural management contends that learning preferences 44 may vary across cultures (see, e.g., Abramson, Keating, & Lane, 1996) an d nations (see, e.g., Trompenaars, 1998). While this correlation ma y seem intuitive, a dramatic and a clear conclusion regarding this relationship remains elus ive. In comparing student use of collaborative learning strategies, Tang (1996) distinguishes be tween formally structured, teacher initiated activities, such as group projects and facilitated discussions (often seen in Western classrooms), and spontaneous collaboration practiced by students from Confucia n heritage culture backgrounds, particularly outside the classroom context. Indeed, if learners across cultures and nations exhibit different learning preferences, then universities and educational systems may need to rethink learning support systems, modify curricula, and adju st teaching methods to create the most effective learning environm ent for those involved (Kolb, 2014). Al-Harthi (2010) examined cu ltural variations between Arab and American distance learners to explore learners™ preferences and identif y the ways they self-re gulate and interact in a virtual learning environment. Her research aime d at investigating the effectiveness of online courses offered through the Arab Open University (AOU), which used modern Western approaches to instruction. American students scored higher than Arab students on planning, monitoring, effort, time and environment management and self-efficacy, all of which are critical constructs to succeed in a web-based environmen t. Arab students struggled with their self- regulating strategies and were found to prefer significantly higher structure and more interaction with their instructors than American student s. She suggests that AOU needs to re-examine factors that will help students enhance thei r self-regulation processes and understand the culturally associated behaviors that could facilitate or impede this process. This research reflects yet another argument for developi ng pedagogical and curricular practices that are culturally 45 appropriate and sensitive to the ways of knowing that characterize learners participating in web-based or face-to-face classrooms. Holtbrügge and Mohr (2010) used Hofstede™s models of power distance, individualism/collectivism, masc uline/feminine, uncertainty avoi dance, and long-term oriented societies to investigate learni ng style preferences of students attending business administration courses at universities in Germany, the UK, th e USA, Russia, the Netherlands, Poland, China, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The aut hors use Kolb™s experiential learning model to support their hypothesis that only individualism and masculinity affected the ways students approach learning. They contend that masculinit y (typical of Arab individuals) had a positive influence on students™ preference for Assimilation, that is, a learning style characterized by reflection and abstract conceptualization. Desired leadership competencies. The literature below discusses leadership attitudes and skills based on executives™ preferences. Perhaps the best known and most widely cited re search study of culture and leadership is the Global Leadership and Organisational Beha viour Effectiveness Study (GLOBE). Founded in 1991 by Robert House of the Wharton School of Busi ness at the University of Pennsylvania, the GLOBE project has published two major reports: "Culture, Leadership, and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies" (2004) and "Cultu re and Leadership across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societiesfl (2007). Approximately 200 researchers conducted quantitative and qualitative studies to investigate 17,300 mid-le vel managers from 951 organizations in 62 countries. Similar to Hofste de™s work, the GLOBE studies were based on the assumption that perceptions of effective leadersh ip are inextricably embedded within the culture of the organization and surrounding society. 46 Two of the most commonly cited analyses are the country clusters and the leadership styles. Countries with similar cultural dimension profiles were organized into 10 clusters: Middle Eastern, Eastern European, African, Latin European, Germanic, Anglo, Nordic, Latin American, Southeast Asian, and Confucian. Arab countries included Algeria, Qatar, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. Middle managers were asked to rate the desirability of 112 leadership characteristics Œ modesty, decisiveness, aut onomous, and trustworthy, for example Œ when considering what it means to be an outstanding leader, a term which they defined as someone who was exceptionally skilled at motivating, infl uencing, or enabling you, others, or groups to contribute to the success of the organization or task. From th is data, the researchers derived six leader styles using statistical and conceptual clustering me thods: performance-oriented style, team-oriented style, participative style, humane st yle, autonomous style, and self-protective (and group-protective) style. Leader styles were then correlated with country clusters sharing similar cultural dimensions. Notably, for the Middle Eastern societal cluster, the performance-oriented and participative-oriented styles were lower ranked than any other style. This indicates these styles were valued the least by this societal cluster. Instead, the Middle Eastern cluster was inclined toward fiin-group colle ctivismfl (Northouse, 2013, p. 392). By contrast, the same leader styles were higher ranked by the Anglo societal cluster, which indicates that, in these countries, this style of leadership was valued more th an other styles. The GLOBE study found that the 22 characteristics were typically seen as contri buting to outstanding leadership. Further, eight characteristics were typically seen as inhibi ting outstanding leadership. GLOBE investigators labeled these as fiuniversalfl characteristics of leadership. Additionally, 35 characteristics were identified as culturally contingent Œ that is, various countries perceived them differently in 47 relationship to leadership. For example, attributes such as ambition, risk taking, logical thinking, enthusiasm, and formality were considered cu lturally sensitive because they are valued differently across countries. GLOBE researchers argued that such variations may be linked to other GLOBE cultural dimensions like uncertain ty avoidance. Even among the fiuniversalfl characteristics, cultural differen ces may be found in how the char acteristic is enacted by leaders from different countries. To illustrate, decisive ness can be perceived as a universally positive characteristic. However, to be decisive in the Middle East may mean to take action with too little consideration, whereas in France or in Germa ny, decisive leaders are seen as acting with deliberate, precise, and well thought out steps. In contrast to the GLOBE study, Abdalla and Al-Homoud (2001) interviewed Kuwaiti and Qatari middle managers and concluded th at they both endorsed a strong desire for consultation to be practiced between leaders and their followers. In both countries, charismatic- value based traits (a dimension found in th e GLOBE study), consider ate traits, and self-protective attributes were consider ed to be desirable. Autocratic traits were perceived to be ineffective. Interviewees claim that the power of the leader Œ a political or military leader Œ comes from the personality, aptitude, and acceptance of their subordinates. In contrast, the power of the manager Œ a business executive, for example Œ may be derived from his seniority. As such, successful leaders need to be equipped with desira ble personality characteristics, aptitude, and an ability to solve unexpected problems using person al resources. Conversel y, successful managers need to possess administrative skills and be able to deal with routine problems based on rules, regulations, and knowledge. Learning enablers and barriers to participation. I will now examine literature related to reasons why adults choose to learn and barriers that prevent them from participating in learning. 48 It appears that there are many similarities/ove rlap between learning goals and barriers to participation for both Arab and Western adult learners. Research fr om Arab scholarship accentuates the importance of family commitment s, the effects of language (i.e., foreign vs. Arabic/native) and cultural sensitivity (i.e., irrele vance of content to local culture) as barriers to participation. Perceived motivation enablers. As mentioned above, a critical differentiating factor that sets adults apart from pre-adult learners is the richer life experiences that Kidd (1973) noted over thirty years ago: fiAdults have more experiences, adults have different kinds of experiences and adult experiences are organized differentlyfl (p. 46). It is these experiences that often act as strong incentives for engaging in learning activities (Merriam & Clark, 2006). Merriman et al. observes that life experiences are fialso what mo tivate many adults to seek out learningfl (2007, p. 425). The purpose of this section is to analyze scholarly work that is specifically concerned with what drives and motivates a dults to particip ate in learning. Houle (1961) investigated the reasons that prompt adults to partake in learning, analyzing the ways in which adults view themselves and learning in relation to their beliefs, needs, and goals. In his study of relatively a small sample of 22 respondents, Houle reported that adult learners are classified into three groups with di stinct learning goals and learning orientations: (a) goal-oriented, (b) activity-oriented learners; (c ) and learning-oriented learners. His research findings have been tested against a large set of data (from over 10,000 le arners internationally) and expanded its footprint across cultures from Africa, Asia, New Zealand, and North America. Based on its applicability across numerous cultures, several pr actitioners have adopted his typology to promote synergy between adult lear ners™ goals and instructional design in the interest of positively affecting educ ational participation (Boshier, 1973). 49 A study in the United States that examined African-American adults™ motivation to participate in church-based education found that a familiar setting, spiritual development, time with family, service, and social interaction drove these groups. The author asserts that the church behaves as a protective space for the African-Ame rican community, minimizing the racism that would otherwise exist outside of the church. There they find a convenient space that they share with others of a similar ethni c and religious background (Isaac, Guy and Valentine, 2001). This indicates the significance of the space and interconnectedness in which adults learn and its place in larger social structures. Al-Barwani and Kelly (1985) indicated that learners in their Oman sample focused more on learning as an enabler for fulle r participation in the community: Economic, academic, and spiritual reasons appear to be the important motives for enrolling in literacy education cl asses in Oman, but of these, academic reasons (simply wanting to know how to read and write) may predominat e. The need for literacy for its own sake superseded the need for literacy for economic gains or spiritual elevation. Economic reasons represent the most frequently mentioned reasons for enrolling among male respondents, and academic reasons were most freque ntly mentioned by females (p. 5). Perceived barriers to participations. Merriam and colleagues ( 2007) contend that fiit is enlightening to understand why adults do not participate in adult learning because fiknowing why adults participate... does not tell us why many do notfl (p. 65). Th e authors claim that the two most cited reasons for non-participation are lack of time and lack of money. The UNESCO study conducted by Valentine (1997) also confirms these two reasons as the main factors; with 45% of respondents asserting that lack of time was a barrier for professional development programs; 50 60.1% for non-job related education; 33.4% answering that the cost was as a barrier for job related education; and 25.4% reporting it for non-job related education. Through their study of participation in adult education, Johnstone and Rivera (1965) also found that 43% of adults cited cost as a barrier, and 39% said they were too busy to attend. Family commitments were the next most signifi cant barrier. Johnstone and Rivera (1965) cluster 10 potential barriers to participation into two groups: internal, or dispositional barriers, and external, or situational ones. External barriers are fiinfluences more or less external to the individual or at least beyond the individual™s controlfl (p. 214), such as the cost of the training program. Internal barriers are linked to personal attitudes, including an individual™s perception of being too old to learn. Further, McGivney (1993) offered a similar way of assessing barriers by classifying them into situational, institutional, and dispositional factors. Situational barriers are those stemming from one™s situation at a given time and include lack of money, lack of time, and lack of transport. Institutional barriers ar e those associated with procedures that exclude or deter from participation and include inconvenient schedules or locations of training courses, lack of relevant programs, and an emphasis on full-time study. Dis positional barriers are those concomitant with attitudes and self-perceptions and include feeling too old to learn, lack of confidence due to previous achievement, being tired of school or class. In support, Carp, Peterson and Roelfs (1973) inspected the learning practices of adult learners involved in professional development. The study found that the barriers, in order of importance, were cost, lack of time, lack of desire to attend school full-time, respons ibilities at home, re sponsibilities at work, and the duration of time required to complete the training. 51 Gallay and Hunter (1979) examined adults who dropped out from college and did not return. They found that adjusting study schedules around their lives was one main barrier. Other barriers included tuition and cost, entrance examin ations, bad past academic achievements and fear of failure. In a study of a public urban uni versity, Hengstler, Haas, and Lovacchini (1984) identified several institutional barriers, encompassing childcare, cost, and scheduling. Similar studies conducted by Beder (1990), Domberg and Winters (1993) and Ryder, Bowman and Newman (1994) found that low self-esteem and low confidence were significant barriers. Respondents also identified family problems, lo w personal priority, cost, negative attitudes toward learning, bad previous educational experiences, as well as lack of information, flexibility, convenience and time as barriers. Family commitments can also act as poten tial barriers. Hagedorn (1993) found that marriage enhanced the probability of dropping out for women by 83%. This may be because family structures still burden wives with the brunt of the housework (Devault, 1997; Pleck and Rustad, 1980; Allen and Walker, 2000). Since th e undertaking of a training program is highly contingent on leisure time and flexibility, it is only logical that marriage increased the probability of dropping out for older women. Al-Barwani and Kelly (1985) found that in Oman, the most common reason cited by women for dropping out was family responsibilities (i.e., difficulty of juggling between home responsibilities and studies) as well as program-rela ted reasons (i.e., the difficulty of the content, failures in assessments, and inconvenience of class schedules). More female than male respondents cited family-related problems as dr op out reasons. Female respondents cited the location of the training center as an important factor of enrollment vs. non-enrollment. 52 Mohsenin (2010) examined culturally res ponsive teaching through a group of Arab and non-Arab students enrolled in postsecondary distance learning courses designed within a U.S. cultural context. He found that course participants assessed the experience as difficult and confusing. Mohsenin argues that the absence of shared cultural beliefs among participants in the course produced challenges that inhibit full participation. The review of research in the area of motivati on enablers and barri ers not only provides useful results and differences across gender, but also highlights significant gaps and a lack of a comprehensive set of factors that focus pr imarily on Arab leadership development. Desired instructor™s characteristics. Wilkin (2001) examined the qualities that 37 managers preferred of an instructor at an institute in the United Arab Emirates. He contends that Arabs prefer instructors who fiu se face-to-face interactions to produce the trust, support and encouragement that are required for candidates to learn effectivelyfl (p. 262). Additionally, he asserts that participants prefer indigenous training professionals, as they understand local needs accurately, the influence of religion on management practices, Arabic styles of leadership and Arabic organizational cultures. Trainers should avoid challenging or criticizing students in the classroom and to be wary of exposing their weakne sses. Candidates confess that trainers need to explain and clarify the terminol ogy continuously as language is a major hurdle to understanding content delivered in English. The study found that misunderstanding and conflicts often happen between trainer and trainees if the trainer does not act in the way expected by traineesfl (p. 265) (i.e., saying unsuitable remarks about Arab cust oms and traditions, failing students on an exam, using content not relevant to local context). Ideal learning environment. In the Arab world, no studies were found that outline executives™ preferences for the location, set-up, and design of the learning environment. In 53 regards to course materials, few studies (e.g., Neal & Finlay, 2008) indicate that American business education students in Lebanon ficannot read as fast, or as much, as first-language students, with the result that they may take more time to follow core ideas and theoriesfl (p. 67). Accordingly, teaching in the Arab world may require reducing the dependency on foreign language materials (or reducing the number of pages to be read) and offer more opportunities for using local case study materials, which are de ficient in quantity and quality across the MENA region. Executives™ learning preferences v ersus experts™ best practices. Studies show that executives™ preferences overlap with expert s™ views on several aspects of leadership development with experts™ views (e.g., face to f ace interactions between instructor and learners, use of case studies with local content, impor tance of instructor™s expertise/age/status, dispositional and situational barriers, learning goals orientations, and instructor™s qualities/skills such as facilitation, technology integration, trustworthy, and engaging). Conversely, experts and executives seem to disagree in the domains of accountability, equity, and use of assessments to measure learning or performance. Experts have recommended, for example, the use of apprenticeship (which includes testing) and 360 degree evaluation procedures. Executives tended to shy away from both practices, either to prevent competition with others or for fear of public criticism. In contrast to expe rts™ recommendation for equity in the classroom (e.g., inclusive of various nationalities, gender and backgrounds), females executives attending the UAE leadership program preferred a learning environment with part icipants of the same gender, nationality, and managerial level. Besides, there does not seem to be a consensus between experts and executives around the concept of accountability. Studies show that a leader, on one hand, needs to be fully responsible for the outcome of the business/institution and, on the other hand, the final outcome 54 is assumed to be God™s final will or/and cannot be separated from the context. In other words, failure or successes may be attributed to situatio nal elements that go bey ond the leader™s control. Understanding those nuances, which may seem conf licting, is vital in the design of effective performance management systems, leadership competency models, and development programs. Further, business management participants expressed that they found reading and studying course materials that are not in their fi rst language challenging. They also stressed the need for higher quality Arab resources to be developed. Additionally, Arab participants preferred instructional methods that are structured, promot e higher levels of interaction, teacher initiated, and require reflection and abstract conceptualization of content. In regards to the leadership competencies that need to be taught in the classroom executives have showed a preference to personality qualities (similar to We stern trait leadership theories), lower inclination to autocratic approaches, stronger orientation for in-group collectivism, and leadership skills such as problem solving and maneuvering the daily administrative requirement of management de mands. Several studies, however, disagreed on Arab leaders™ preference towards performance, consultative and participative approaches for leadership. Empirical research showing similarities and differences between experts and executives™ views in relation to classroom leadership development prac tices is almost non-existent. No studies available indicate what leaders across the MENA region want to learn and compare their preferences to best practices identifi ed by executive education experts. Culture and Leadership Development The last three questions examine the relati onship between learning approaches of Arab executives and their background (national culture, geographical region, and demographics). In 55 this section, I review a selected and relatively small num ber of Arab-specific studies that illuminate how learning preferences and leader ship practices may be perceived somewhat differently by respective Arab nations and how such variability relates to executives background. To a large extent, the literature rarely accounts for differences within MENA (whether it involves socioeconomic, political, or nationa l cultural distinctions) (Mameli, 2013). Generalizability and variability in leadership approaches across gender, nations, educational background, and sectors proved challenging, as studies often used similar language/terminology to discuss different leadership concepts, and used unclear or various ways to measure the same constructs, or only looked at one or two countries. Learning preferences and culture. Andragogy, experiential, and self-directed learning focus on the individual becoming an independent l earner who relies mostly on himself or herself in the process. Self-directed learners (SDL) are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active in their own learning processes and in attaining their own goals. To engage in optimally effective self-directed practice, student s possess a set of self-regulatory competencies that include but are not limite d to learning strategies, goal setting, time management, self- evaluation, self-attribution, help seeking, and environmental st ructuring (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2006). Cultural psychologists argue that such Wester n perspectives as Andragogy, experiential learning and SDL, among others , tend towards ethnocentricity. Both Andragogy and SDL exist in stark contrast to non-Western learning traditions where the concept of learning and self are interdependent and enhanced only in relation to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Even though the basic structure of several universal learning principles (subject to cognitive limitations) are inviolable, theories may be culturally bound. As such, educational scientists need to consider 56 what features should be modified or contextualized to face huma n variability (i.e., ecologically or genetically determined) without turning pheno typic differences into genotypic similarities. That is, studying how the magnitudes of cultura l antecedents and determinants of universal constructs may differ or act as moderators between groups or individuals is essential to understanding how adults learn. This approach, one in which the effects of sociocultural contexts are included in the study of learning, has caused tension between situated and cognitive perspectives. Kitayama (2002) argued for a system ic cultural perspective, a perspective which describes the need for understanding the role of culture and the ways culture interacts, strengthens, or weakens students™ learning propensities, motives, and processes. This systemic cultural approach helps researchers question, for example, if the meanings of autonomy and achievement are the same across all cultures and ethnic groups or if individuals in different ethnic groups and cultures are higher or lower in different motiva tional beliefs, such as values, goals, and control (see also Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Studying how concepts are seen and experienced by the people in vari ous cultures is largely concerned with fibetter theory development and conceptualization of important variablesfl (Triandis & Brislin, 1983, p.6). Such challenges are, to an extent, rela ted to methodological limitations, which will be discussed in details in chapter 5. The advantages of investigating principles of motivation cross- culturally allows for theory expansion by examin ing its robustness (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014), testing the universality of Western-centr ic constructs (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Kennon, 2001), the extension of self-construal models , and the isolating/controlling for some unconfounding variables (Sue, Zane, & Ito, 1979). The following empirical studies suggest that culture can either give rise to incongruence between instructional practices and students™ learning preferences or act as a mode rator on learning constructs. 57 Abdel Bary's (2007) study offers an example of how differences in national culture relate to differences in learning preferences. Bary studied over 800 Arab learners enrolled in a web-based professional development program to devel op an understanding of the nature of Arab adult learners and their needs. Similar to Westerners, participants reported time pressures in submitting their work as a constraint of the online environment. The instructional methods used in the training reflected a constructivist approach to learning, where students assume responsibility over the process and require high self-directedness to navigate the materials. Abdel Bary reported that learners were challenged by the lack of clear set of objectives to guide their learning, demanded more interaction and feedback from teachers, and requested that the content be broken down into simpler, practical and skill-oriented steps. The results of the study show that the needs of the learne rs mirror a traditional learning orient ation typically found in a Arabic classroom, wherein the teacher is solely re sponsible for directing and communicating the learning process. To denote the role of culture as a modera tor and investigate wh ether students need autonomy to optimally function in all global classrooms, Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, and Kasser (2001) examined college-age students from i ndividualistic (U.S.) and collectivistic (South Korea) cultures. The authors found that both groups ranked autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the top of their li sts, and that the three needs e xplained distinctive variance in students™ well-being. Other Self-Determination Theory (SDT) research supports that autonomy is indeed a universal psychological need, though it also identifies findings that emphasize degrees of cultural specificity (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). For example, even though individuals from collectivist cultures find autonomy satisfying, they mostly find a relatedness experience to be even more satisfying (Sheldon et al., 2001). Fu rthermore, unlike members of individualistic 58 societies, collectivists generally find a controlling climate to be relatively less threatening to their psychological needs (Reeve et al., 2001). In another study, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) found that while students of all cultures demonstrate higher intrinsic motivation when offered choice in instructional settings, collectivists (Asian Amer ican) students performed best of all when these choices were made by individuals with whom they had a personal connection (e.g., parent and peers). On the other hand, individualist (Anglo American) learners performed just as poorly when choices were made for them by importa nt in-group members as by complete strangers. A dialectic approach. The aforementioned studies show that differences in learning may emerge from cultural differences and that cultures may moderate approaches to learning among individuals. The SDT universality claims that sociocultural influences can either nurture students™ self-determined approaches to learni ng or neglect and thwart these same inner individual psychological needs. The examination of cultural factors does not imply that there are no universals or that scientific inquiry about how learning responds to various cultures should cease (Pintrich, 2003). A Western perspective is of ten tied to classical Greek culture in which fipersonal freedom, individuality, and object ive thoughtfl (Nisbett, 2003, p. 30) were imported to Europe and expanded to other parts of the world through European colonization. By assuming a colonialist mindset, modernist science created universal meanings and determined realities: fisuch capabilities legitimate particular ways of seeing and delegitimate othersfl (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999, p. 31). To avoid marginalizing ot hers systems of learni ng, Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007), among others , assert that researchers need to expand our understanding of learning by examining other systems and culture s. The purpose of this study is not to replace the valuable contributions that Western science af fords, particularly in the field of education. 59 Instead, the study aims to recognize both non-West ern and Western views by examining experts™ views on best practices for leadership development programs in both Western and Arabic traditions. Adopting a dialectic approach that seeks a middle ground be tween the relativistic and postpositivist extremes and considers the pot ential influence of cultural moderators on generalized universal principles will help advance the science of education and help teachers understand how, when, and why learning and development models do or do not hold for different groups (Pintrich, 2003). As a result, examining how Arab executives™ approaches to learning differ or are moderated by national cultures and geographical regions would help design leadership models that would respond to learners™ preferences. Leadership practices and culture. To explain the difference in findings between the GLOBE and the study conducted by Abdalla and Al-Homoud, Kabasakal and Dastmalchian (2001) argued that the data on Iran, Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar from the GLOBE study confirm the need to examine the complexity of using cros s-cultural dimensions to determine leadership outlooks. They stress the value of considering such contextual factors as historical and political development, language, social and religious outlooks of the region. For example, despite the fact that all nations studied are predominantly Islamic, they diffe red significantly in both the role of religion in politics and even the denominations th at make up the majority of believers. In their conclusion, Kabasakal and Dastmalchian (2001) noted: In line with their organizational cultures, imp licit leadership theories in these societies involve more performance and future orientatio n as well as other universalistic attributes such as charisma and supportive behavior. Or ganizational leaders are expected to be sensitive to local cultures and traditions yet at the same time become initiators of change. 60 Training programs for managers in all type s of organizations and academic theories would require such sensitivity to both emic and etic dimensions, and would increasingly need to involve a combination of univers alistic dimensions with culture-specific manifestations of these attribut es and local traditions. (p. 486) Elsayed-Ekjiouly and Buda (1996) conduc ted a comparative study between Middle Eastern Arab and U.S. executives, examining th e way they handle interpersonal conflict with their managers. The Middle-Eastern Arab count ries included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait. American executives™ approaches to management were characterised as more dominating, whereas Arab executive s™ approaches were more in tegrating, conflict avoiding, and holistic (c.f., similar to Eastern cultures where la ws are seen as a flexib le quantity that is not separated from its context; Nisbett, 2004). Linguistically, managers (Western vs. Arabic) vary in degrees of directnessŒ explicitness, communicative strength, and bluntness-cushioning. This variation is interpreted and valued differently across cultures. In high context cultures, such as Asian and Arab cultures, routine communication assumes a greater degree of shared understanding among people speaking. In other word s, communication is often implicit, rather than explicit, and more is left unsaid. High contex t cultures tend also to ha ve low racial diversity and a strong sense of tradition and history. By contrast, in low context cultures, such as Germany and the United States, day-to-day speakers assume a lower degree of shared understanding, rely less on inference, and tend to be more explicit in the way they talk (Copeland & Griggs, 1986). As such, the likelihood for miscommunication ma y be greater. Humour may be missed or misinterpreted, individuals from a higher context culture may feel left out when speaking with others or may feel talked down to when speak ing with someone from a lower context culture (e.g., Western manager). Accordingly, a lead er™s unfitting approach to management, 61 communication, and problem solving may thwart empl oyees™ engagement in their leader™s vision and their willingness to perform beyond the call of duty. Similarly, Ali, Krishnan, and Camp (2006) examined Hofstede™s individualism and collectivism dimensions and their influence on deci sion-making strategies of Arab and American executives. The sample included 83 Arab execu tives participating in an international development management program and 81 American executives enrolled in an executive MBA program in the US. Both Arabs and Americans surv eyed preferred consultative and participative decision making. Americans scored higher on in dividualism measurements than the Arab participants, but they also found that Americans who worked in the public sector tended toward collectivism. Results suggest the importance of looking at the sect or as an independent variable affecting leadership preferences and the value of understanding differences among cultures to overcome workplace challenges cause d by cross-cultural communication. Khakhar and Rammal (2013) provided an update d view of how business is conducted in the Arab world. They examined how political, cu ltural, and socio-economic factors influence the way Arab managers conduct business. Authors interviewed 30 Arab managers in public and private sectors in Lebanon. They hypothesized that the high political risk, collectivist, and polychronic tendency of Arabic culture would shape how managers build trust and relationships in negotiations. They argue that such tendencies translate into managers requiring more investment of time to build long term relations hips to advance the business or close deals. However, the study showed that in reality, and due to globalization, Lebanese managers are moving away from being polychromic and becoming more monochromic (e.g., attending meetings on time and sticking to hard deadlines). However, the concept of wasta (doing business based on connections and nepotism) remains an im portant factor in advancing the business and 62 influencing negotiations positively. This study demonstrates how Western practices are becoming more prevalent in th e MENA and the importance of understanding the nuances of the local culture (e.g., wasta). Aycan, Al-Hamadi, Davis, and Budhwar (2007) studied the effect of culture on human resource development preferences for 712 Omani employee trainees across six Omani companies. The survey was based on 11 dime nsions of cultural orientation developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). It specifically examined human nature organization, person- nature orientation, activity orientation, and relational orientation. Respondents showed a preference for mastery, thinking, and doing, with a weak orientation for collectivism, being, subjugation, and hierarchy. While some results are aligned with previous studies on the Islamic work ethic, data also showed that Omanis, especially young workers, are more individualistic than would be have been indicated in previous studies. This study is valuable, as it highlights the importance of age as an independent variable, it s influence on the affinity towards traditional national values, and the need to tackle the gap between actual and desired HRM practices to engage the new generation (i.e., the Millennials). Ali, Azim, and Krishman (1995) compared cult ural values and decision-making styles of expatriate and indigenous managers in the UAE. 289 participants from eight organizations, from private and public sectors in the UAE (32% Arab expatriates and 10% foreign expatriates), were surveyed using the Values for Working Questionn aire and decisional styles statements. Results showed that Arab expatriates were more conformist (i.e., they had low tolerance for ambiguity and adheres to norms) than foreign expats. Data also showed that Arab expatriate and national managers displayed a high preference for partic ipative and pseudo-participative styles, while foreign expatriates show a high commitment to c onsultative style. Foreign expats scored higher 63 on egocentric and manipulative values. There were also differences between sectors with private employees showing less tendency for conformi sm than government employees. Authors conclude that outer-directed values (i.e., submissive to authority and/or tradition) are the primary work values in the UAE, which means that tr aditional aspects of conducting business are the norm. Multinational organizations may benefit from recruiting individuals who display or understand tribalistic, sociocentric values to manage their businesses in the UAE. The authors also contended that differences between foreign e xpatriates and host country nationals need to be fully understood fito minimize potential problems and devise personnel policies essential for successful operations abroadfl (Ali et al., 2015, p. 6). Bakhtari (1995) studied Middle Eastern a nd US managers working in multinational companies located in the United States. 95 US -born and 59 Middle Eastern-born immigrants were surveyed using the Managerial Style Inventory, which categorizes leadership as coercive, democratic, authoritative, affiliative, pace-setti ng, and coaching. Demographic data on gender, age, affiliation, and time in America were co llected. Results showed that Middle Eastern managers scored higher on the coercive scale an d US manager scored hi gher on authoritative and pace setting. Findings indicated little to no impact on styles in educational attainment or time spent in the US. Middle Eastern managers had a higher level of education. The author argued that Middle Easterners working in the US demonstrate managerial styles associated more with the US than with the traditional Arab context. This study indica tes a level of assimilation and acculturation with the exception of more coercive styles, which likely stems from a traditional hierarchical structure of organi zations in the Middle East. This assimilation and acculturation may imply that workers tend to ad apt to the dominant culture of the country in which they are employed. 64 The consensus in cross-cultural research on learning is that cultural differences may lead to incongruence between instructor and students and/or moderate certain approaches to learning (e.g., self-directed learning, the need for belongingness, higher interaction and feedback levels from the instructor). Studies around the relations hip between leadership and culture show that several practices are changing (e.g., through accultu ration and globalization). However, existing approaches for doing business and leading institutions in the Arab vary from their counterparts in the West in different ways (e.g., communication and humour, conflict reso lution approaches and degrees of directedness, time needed to build relationship and close deals, influence of wasta/ personal connections, and levels of conformity with regulations and submission to authority). Examining the competencies underpinning effectiv e leadership according to Arab executives would shed light on the preferred aspects of leadership developm ent programs. Several research studies illustrated or/and probed the effect of sector, gender and age as important independent variables influencing executives™ views on leadership. Summary of Findings from Research Expert recommendations of best practice pr inciples for leadership development. While Western literature on leadership development largely focused on methods to encourage high workplace performance, Arabic literature ofte n highlighted the local needs of executives and the incongruence between Western and Arab models for leadership and learning. Using experiential learning as a best practice to promote high workplace performance, Western researchers developed valuable and pragmatic frameworks for implementing leadership development programs. Both the facilitator™s ch aracteristics and the learning environment aim at supporting the principles of experiential learning. Leadership competencies drew from a toolbox of models that could be matched with the cultur e of the corporation or/and styles of leaders. 65 Research around recommendations for Arab executiv es were influenced either by Islamic or Western principles, and the studies stressed the incongruence between modern/Western values or instructional methods and the Arabic learner. In particular, scholars called for culturally relevant pedagogical practices and the contextualization of We stern leadership models to the local challenges leaders are facing. An emerging theme that perpetuated among the scarce literature was the need to reclaim the identity of Arab cult ure or the fear of diluting Arab culture in the face of globalization. Explicit recommendations in relation to instructor™s characteristics and design of the learning environment were not include d in the literature. Studies, in general, only covered one or two countries at a time. Accordingly, this study aims to address the gaps by examining all countries across the Gulf and Leva nt regions, integrate practices that would both promote a high performance culture (i.e., dr awing on Western methodologies which may be applicable in the Arab context) and attend to the nuances of the local needs of executives (avoiding to address the local nuances may lead to reduced engage ment/frustration of followers). This study will also investigate the ideal el ements for promoting an effective learning environment and recommended qualities of in structors teaching in Arabic classroom. Comparing experts to executives™ views of leadership development. Very few studies have studied executives™ approaches to leadership development. Available research shows the stark differences between Western practices a nd Arab executives™ preferences, and studies highlight the conflicts which arise from impor ting instructional methodologies or modern leadership practices. Existing st udies on Arabs™ learning preferences examined a limited set of learning constructs. For example, research on mo tivational enablers and barriers, instructors™ preferred qualities and ideal environment, from th e learner™s perspective, was sparse. In relation to leadership competencies, substantial evidence showed that leadership approaches vary across 66 Hofstede™s dimensions. Leadership models and preferred styles were examined in very few countries and still need to account for socioe conomic and political forces of the MENA region. Studies comparing learning prefer ences and leadership approaches of executives to experts™ views on best practices lacked a clear conceptualization of how they differ and on what they agree. In response, this study™s overarching goal is to survey executives learning preferences (i.e., learning activities, leadership compet encies, motivational constructs, instructors™ characteristics and learning environment) acro ss the MENA regions. Even more, the study will seek to identify the similarities and disagreeme nt that exist between experts and executives™ views in an attempt to offer recommendations on how to reconcile both views and include both perspectives (i.e., adult learners™ needs and executive education professionals). Executives™ background and leadership development. In the face of globalization, scholars are investigating ways Westernized leadership prin ciples can be integrated without assimilation, especially if lo cals are being taught in their home country. Research in cross- cultural psychology and business management sugge sts that effective learning requires that cultural values (e.g., Hofstede™s national indices and geographical regions) be well-understood to guarantee that the concepts, linguistic nuances, and messages intende d by instructors are relevant to learners within the c ontext of their own society. Even though factors influencing executives™ approaches to learning are embedded into his or her demographic makeup (i.e., age, gender, sector, and educational background), it is not clear in the literature how this interplay unfolds. Existing research points to the need for further examination of how executives™ background may be related to variability in learning preferences. The limited studies that address the relationship between executives™ background and learning preferences suggest several areas in need of research. This study aims at gathering evidence to describe the nature of this relationship and 67 propose recommendations on how to leverage differences across executives (regions, nationality, age, gender, sector, etc.) to design responsive and customized l eadership development programs. 68 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Research Questions As evidenced in the literature review, few studies focus specifically on identifying best practices related to Arab leadership development or examine executives™ preferred approaches to learning. These studies show that although adult learners in the Arab classroom report sharing similar views on leadership development to their Western counterparts, the Arab learner seeking leadership development faces a different set of c ontextual conditions that need to be considered. Consequently, this research relies on and draws from Arab leadership development experts and investigates the extent to which sociocultural factors relate to executives™ approaches to learning. Examining how executives™ beliefs vary by cultural background (national values and geographical regions) and demogr aphics is critical to the de sign of customized, culturally responsive education models. It is particularly vital to the development of existing and aspiring leaders™ skills and knowledge base as the region continues to modernize itself within the boundaries of its distinctive cultures. In an attempt to put forward recommendations on how to integrate both traditional and modern views of leadership development and examine how diversity within the Arab region relates to executives™ learning preferen ces, there are several research questions that this study attempts to address: Q1- What are the most effective Arab leader ship development practices as identified by training experts? Q2- What are the similarities and differences between experts™ and Arab learners™ views of best leadership development practices? Q3- How do geographical regional differences relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about centr al aspects of leadership development program? 69 Q4- How do cultural dimensions relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development program? Q5- How do learners™ characteristics (i.e. ge nder, sector, age and background education) relate to Arab preferences for leadership development? To address those questions, I have drawn on an existing set of data generated by a research team working in a multinational consulting firm based in the UAE. This chapter aims to (a) describe the data used for the study, (b) discuss the methods used to generate the data, (c) identify the scales created to measure the variab les, and (d) outline the statistical analyses that will use the scales to answer the research questions. Description of the Existing Data This study is a secondary analysis of existing data collected in 2012 by a research team composed of 12 members from various backgrounds (e.g., academic, consulting, analysts, leadership, research, etc.), which I led while working at a multinational consulting firm (Khattab, 2012). The firm granted me full permission to own the intellectual property (IP) of the data. The data consists of three sets: 174 items related to leadership development best practices (as identified through surveys given to 24 experts), transcripts from a focus group (eight one-on-one face to face interviews) of high profile senior executives, and responses of 1521 executives to 115 survey items (total of 174,915 data cells) related to culture a nd learning preferences. The experts. A panel of experts in Arab leadership development were selected to participate in three rounds of surveys. The purpose of this iterative process Œ called the Delphi procedure (Linstone & Turoff, 1975) Œ was to identify what experts felt were the most important elements of effective leadership development programs. Details about the Delphi process and results will be discussed later in this chapter. A subcontracted market research company adopted 70 a stratified random sampling to select an expert panel able to represent a diverse, high-level perspective on Arab leadership development. The sample pool consisted of CEOs, research directors, university provosts, foundation leaders, and government officials. The experts represented wide ranging sectors including technology, financial, petroleum, academic, foundations, consulting, government, a nd parliament. With an average experience of 20 years in executive education, the experts (two females and 22 males) came from both the public and private sectors (see Table 1). The Delphi group was composed of 15 Arabs, two East Asians and seven Westerners who have been extensively invo lved in leadership development in the Arab region (e.g., Ernst and Young, London Business Sc hool, Harvard Business School, Etisalat, Center for Creative Leadership, ministries, etc.), as well as in the West (Europe, Asia, and USA). Table 1: Delphi Demographics Age Group Number of Delphi Average Number of Years Experience Number Working in Private Sector Number Working in Public Sector Generation X 14 12.36 12 2 Boomers & Veterans 10 24 7 3 The focus group. The research team conducted one-on-one face-to-face interviews with eight Arab industry and academic leaders (vice presidents, CEO, CAO, Managing Directors, Chairwoman, and a country Sheikh) across Jord an, Qatar, and the UAE. Participants were selected based on their extensive experience w ith leadership development (i.e., they have attended several executive education programs), thei r senior leadership role s in both public and private sector institutions, and accessibility/availabili ty to be part of the interview process. These 71 interviews provided important in sight, input, and validation of the results of the survey of experts. The executives. The third population surveyed by the research team constituted of 2,250 executives working in both public and private sectors across 17 Arab countries. A Large Scale Survey (LSS) was used to gauge Arab business leaders™ responses to the best practices identified by the experts interviewed during the Delphi process and the focus group. The market research firm used a stratified random sampling method to select the 2,250 senior managers, directors, and executives and target various sectors, both gender, and a minimum of 100 respondents from each MENA nation. To ensure the respondent qualified for participation, a set of criteria questions were asked prior to the actual surv ey. The qualifying criteria largely revolved around the participating respondent™s designation and nationality. Interviews were conducted using a Computer-Assisted Telephone Inte rviews (CATI) methodology, a methodology shown to be the most efficient in conducting large scale data collection in a timely and efficient manner. CATI is an interactive front-end computer system that aids interviewers to ask questions over the telephone. The answers are then immediately keyed into the computer system by the interviewer. This platform allows interviewers to perfor m multiple tasks of interviewing, data entry and simple coding simultaneously. The questionnaire and interviewer script is preprogrammed and software-driven Œ providing interactive controls to question branching or skipping Œ and validates the data as it is entered. The interviewers key the information directly into the computer system. As a result, data entry as a separate process is no longer necessary. Most of the questions are in multiple-choice format, and the response is translated directly in to a code by the CATI system and updated in the database. The interv iews for this study were conducted in Arabic, English, and French by professionally trained multilingual interviewers. To ensure timely 72 completion of the survey, respondents were provid ed an option to electronically complete the survey through email or web portal. Although over 500 participants opted for this approach, and only 16% of those participating returned complete d and validated interview forms. Moreover, in order to reduce the number of CATI respondent s dropping the survey prior to completion, interviewees were given the option of completing the (already commenced) survey at a later more convenient time. One thousand five hundred twenty-one forms were completed and validated, achieving a response rate of 68%. Of the different Arab nationalities, 11 were selected to be included in this study because they are wi thin the two regions of in terest - Middle East & North Africa (MENA) Gulf and MENA Levant, resulting in a sample of 837 respondents. Figure 1 and Table 2 show how the countries are divided into regions, as well as the number of participants within each birth nationality. Table 2: Birth Nationalities Figure 1: Participants by Nationality Birth Nationality N Jordanian 141 Lebanese 141 Iraqi 140 Yemeni 113 Syrian 62 Bahraini 57 Saudi 53 Omani 51 Qatari 37 Kuwaiti 31 Emirati 11 73 The charts in figures two through six descri be, at a glance, the demographic makeup of the LSS sample of executives. Figure 5: Participant Age Figure 2: Arab/Non-Arab Schooling Figure 3: Participant Gender Figure 4: Participant Region 74 Figure 6: Participant Sector Methods to Generate the Data This section describes how data was generated from the three groups (Delphi experts, one-on-one interviews with the fo cus group, and executives™ large scale survey). The three sets of data, on which this study is based, produced the data to elicit: (a) view s of experts (based on the Delphi procedure), (b) elaborated views of 8 experts (based on interviews), and (c) survey of leaders across the Arab region. In the next sectio n, I will explain how the data was gathered from the first two groups and items were creat ed to form the la rge scale survey. The Delphi method. A Delphi technique was used to develop consensus by 24 nationally and internationally known experts in executive education. This has resulted in generating 174 items capturing best-practices for classroom-b ased leadership development programs. The Delphi process prioritized 50 items that were th en used to form the bulk of the Large Scale Survey. The Delphi survey of experts represents th e first stage in the overall data collection process that generated the data that this study draws upon. The purpose of the Delphi procedure was to determine the experts™ views on four ke y areas of leadership development programs: 75 methods of leadership development, content to be included in leadership development, motivational factors affecting participation, and barriers to participation. The 174 items generated from the Delphi were prioritized to produce a list of 50 items, which were then included in the Large Scale Survey (LSS). To prioritize the 174 items, the Delphi procedure followed a three steps approach: Round One: The main features of the De lphi Method include a group of expert participants, a moderator, th ree rounds of survey questions, and anonymous and independent participation. In the first round of surveying, participants are asked their opinion on the key issues at hand (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Leadership training experts were asked to list as many factors as they wished in the following categories: methods of leadership development; content to be included in leadership development; motivational factors affecting participation; and barriers to participation. The research team reviewed the results of the Round One. Factors were organized into subgroups within each category. Redundant or high similar factors were eliminated. In Round Two, participants are shown a list of all responses from the first round and asked to examine the factors identified in Round One and rate the strength of their effect or importance to leadership traini ng. Experts could add additional factors if they wished. Experts rated items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strong positive effect/most important to 1 = strong negative effect/least important to leadership development). The mean ratings for each item are calculated. In Round Three, experts reviewed the central factors determined by an analysis of the group™s consensus in the Round Two survey to have the most impact on the effectiveness of Arab leadership training. They were shown their rating alongside the group mean rating for each 76 item and were given a chance to change thei r rating. The Delphi Round Three ratings were reviewed and rank ordered according to the mean. As a result of the Delphi procedure, the group of experts will have produced both a list of opinions on an issue and a rating of the importance of each opinion. As a tool for consensus building, the Delphi has several advantages. Compared to face-to-face meetings, participants ™ responses are confidential and independent. Participants are unaware of the identity of the other experts until the conclusion of the survey. Effects related to individual™s status, reputation, and personality may be reduced by the anonymous nature of the process. Additionally, because questions are indepe ndently answered, they are less likely to be affected by group dynamics that favor one poi nt of view over another (Sackman, 1974). At the end of the Delphi process, researchers choose a cu t-off point Œ usually the top 20%. Opinions above that cut-off point represent opinions that these experts felt to be the most important. In this project, the research team es tablished a cut-off point on the basis of the item scores, conceptual framework, and practical constr aints of the research. It was determined that the cut-off point would be the five top-ranked items for each section and subsection (refer to Appendix A for items with mean averages and th eir corresponding standard deviation). In some cases more than five items were selected from a subsection because they had the same mean score (e.g., ‚interacting with the instructor™ with a mean of 4.29 a nd ‚role play activities™ with a mean of 4.29). In other cases, th e research team identified items, which were ranked low by the Delphi experts but have emerged and been reinforced during the one-on-one focus group interviews (e.g., ‚cultural hurdles for women™ w ith an average mean of only 3.38). Those items were also included in the final list of 50 fiDelphi Items,fl which formed the basis of the LSS. Validity and reliability. The selection of participants for a Delphi study is crucial to the overall validity of the study (Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, & Snyder, 1972). The experts™ profiles, 77 which were proposed by the market research firm , have been closely inspected and screened by members of the research team (two university professors and practitioners experts in Adult learning and leadership development) prior to generating the list of experts invited to participate in the panel. This assumption that the procedure has adequately identified items of interests through the expert panel strengthens the instrument content and face validity (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). The experts selected items having a strong effect on leadership development (i.e., the rating score of the items is between fisom ewhat positivefl and fivery positivefl resulting, on average, with a score above 4 out of 5). A cut-off point was established on the basis of item scores, conceptual framework, and practical cons traints of the research. The research team determined that the cut-off point would be on av erage the first five top-ranked items for each section. Inter-rater reliability was measured using a two-way mixed, consistency, average- measures intraclass correlations (ICC) (McGraw & Wong, 1996) to compute the degree that the 24 Delphi experts provided consistency in their ratings of empathy regarding their views about aspects of classroom-based leadership devel opment. The resulting ICC was in the excellent range, ICC = 0.95 (see Table 3) for the third Delphi round, indicating that experts had a high degree of agreement. Table 3: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .95 24 78 Table 3 (cont™d) Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Intraclass Correlation b 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0 Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig Single Measures .42a .37 .48 18.60 173 3979 0.000 Average Measures .95c .93 .96 18.60 173 3979 0.000 Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed. a. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not. b. Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition. The between-measure variance is excluded fr om the denominator variance. c. This estimate is computed assuming the in teraction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise. The focus group interviews. Findings from face-to-face semi-s tructured interviews with eight Arab senior executives have helped generate 24 more items to the 50 Delphi items. The interviews have shed light on the priorities pr oposed by the Delphi experts and presented a thick description of executives™ views in relation to the complexity of the context accompanied with the responses (Holloway, 1997). The open-ended exploration of topics, which was raised during the Delphi procedure, allowed the research team to record interview ees™ impressions, feelings and thoughts that are not usually documented by surv eys. Based on the results of the interviews, the research team added 24 items to the 50 Delphi items to form the bulk of the LSS. In the below section, I will describe how the interv iew process was conducted and generated the 24 items. In the analysis and results chapter (Chapter 4), I may need to refer to the transcripts of the 79 eight interviews to elaborate on or capture mean ings in response to any significant gaps which may arise during the interpretation of the data. Th e combination of both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (Delphi and LSS) methods may provide an expanded understanding of the research problems posed by the study. Interview procedure. The interviewees were selected ba sed on a list of high profile senior executives (academia and business sectors) recommended by the research team. Because of the seniority of the interviewees, it was vital to id entify participants whom the research team have access to. Availability of executives and willingne ss to allocate time in their busy schedule also limited the pool of participants. Eight participants agreed on a time and place to carry out the one-on-one interviews with two members of the research team. Interviews were conducted in three different countries: UAE, Jordan, and Qatar. An interview guide was used to specify the questions, the sequence in which they are to be asked, and the general guidelines for what the researcher is to say at the beginning and end of each interview (refer to Appendix B for the interview protocol). The interviews lasted roughly one hour each. Interviewees were first asked to review Delphi™s top and low rated items for each section, agreeing or disagreeing with them (e.g., ‚Do you agree/disagree with training activities™ items, wh ich were ranked high and low by Delphi experts?™). Then, the interviewees were asked if they could think of other important items that did not appear on the list but that they would rate higher (e.g., ‚Can you think of an important item that is not listed?™ and ‚Are there any additional issues that we have not addressed in this study in your opinion?™). The interviewees also discussed whether the items identified by the Delphi experts would change across nationalities/sectors/gender/age (e.g., ‚Do you think the answers change across cultures/nationalities/sector s/gender/age?™ Finally, a series of questions was used to allow participants the freedom to answ er in whatever direction they chose while they 80 discuss challenges and successes related to leadership development (e.g., ‚What are the leadership development challenges faced by your organization? What are the strategies your company use to motivate employees to undertak e those training courses? How is technology shaping lifelong learning or on the job training courses? Ho w does your organization identify training needs and leadership skills?™). Recording and analysis methods. Two members of the research team took handwritten notes directly during the interview. Once data was obtained, these notes were transcribed and organized into categories or segments of text (Rallis & Rossman, 1998). The coding process that followed was inspired by the eight-step procedure suggested by Tesch (1990). As a first step a general sense of the information was obtaine d to reflect the overall meaning, general impressions, and tone of ideas of respondents. Then, interview transcripts were reviewed to generate a list of similar topics (e.g., leadership competencies to in clude ability to take initiative, articulate a vision, transfer wisdom and commit to his people) acr oss interviewees versus unique topics (e.g., disagreement on what motivate leaders to partake in leadership program according to nationality: people in Bahrain need to buy into fibigger and different carrotsfl versus in the UAE fia lot of things change every month and [we want] to remain up to date with all developmentsfl). After turning topics into categories, a list of c odes are conceptually clustered and compared to the Delphi material (sections a nd subsections). For example, inte rviewees™ script validated the Delphi top ranked items: fitiming of the program ,fl fireputation of training provider,fl and fitoo much content used in training.fl Those items were clustered under the barriers to participation section. Markedly, Delphi low-rated items, such as ficultural hurdl es for females,fl filanguage of the program,fl and filocation of the training,fl were also emphasized by interviewees as critical factors that influence enrollmen t of executives. In particular, the majority of the focus group 81 agreed that the filevel of difficu lty of the training (either above or below)fl and fithe cost of the programfl are also important barriers to participation and need to be added to the list of priorities. Other new themes that emerged beyond the scop e of the Delphi findings included comments related to nationality and gender of other classroo m participants and linked to the importance of succession planning in the Arab region. Consequen tly, the research team added 24 items to the LSS (e.g., fiParticipants are from the same gender as me,fl fiParticipants are all Arabs,fl fiFamily connection or interpersonal connectionfl as an important method to promote individuals to business leadership positions). Reliability and validity. Data collected from the intervie wees were used to complement experts™ views related to leadership development and thereby offered triangulation of data that enhanced the internal validity. The symmetry a nd consistency found between different sections across various aspects of leadership development programs offers internal validity of experts and executives™ reports (Merriam, 1998). Interview transcripts were sent to and checked by interviewees, allowing them an opportunity to modify, clarify or expand on the initial interviews. Such checks helped ensure that the interview™s results were an accurate reflection of participants™ preferences and beliefs at the time of the inte rviews (Merriam, 1998). To ensure the intercoder reliability of data , a peer examination process was conducted by a graduate educational psychology student and a university professor from the research team to efficiently identify any evident errors and valida te the interview transcripts. Coding cross-checks were followed by tallying the number of agreements and disagreements between the graduate student and the professor. The intercoder reliability measure was computed by dividing the number of agreements to the number of agr eements plus disagreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interrater reliability for this cross-check was 96%. 82 The large scale survey. The third set of data was generated by the Large Scale Survey (LSS). The LSS consisted of 115 items, which included 74 items related to leadership development features, Hofstede™s 28 items , and 13 demographic items. The LSS was administered to 1521 respondents, representing 27 different nationalities, and working in 17 different countries from the Middle East and North Africa. Using a five-point Likert scale, respondents were asked to rate their preferences for the practices included on the survey. They were asked to rate leadership development practic es from 1 for fileast preferredfl to 5 for fimost preferredfl (exact wording of the LSS English translation for each item stem is included in the next section and in Appendix C). For the purpose of this study, I am only focusing on the data generated from countries from the Levant and Gulf regions (11 countries in total), narrowing the sample to 837 respondents. Their responses will help to identify perceptions of business leaders on effective practices for leadership developm ent and determine their cultural orientations. Translation. It should be noted that, to ensure the appropriate representation of items/questions™ meaning across th e cultures present in the Arab region, the Delphi, the focus group interviews, and LSS were translated and back translated to three languages: Arabic, French, and English. Cross cultural researchers ty pically seek to determine whether the same instrument is adequate across all cultural group s™ studies. In response, Embretson (1983) has proposed to check whether the measurement pro cedure represents an adequate and complete sample of the behavioral manifestations of th e construct that is being studied. This surely requires deep knowledge of both the psychological construct and cultural context in which the instrument will be applied. Researchers are faced with three choices: to apply the instrument, to adapt it or to assemble a new version (Berry et al., 1997). To help ensure that meanings and concepts have been captured across the three la nguages (French, Arabic and English), competent 83 bilinguals and monolinguals were on the research team to make adaptation necessary to rephrase, edit or replace items to address the missing aspects of some constructs. They have also taken the LSS survey in three languages to assess the accuracy of the translation. Exact English wording of the LSS items are included in the tables shown in the next sections (also the complete LSS is included in Appendix C). Exact English wording of the Delphi items are included in chapter 4 (complete list of items with mean averages and standard deviations is included in Appendix A). Exact English wording for one-on-one interview questions is included in Appendix B. Scales from the LSS Approach to creating the scales. To conduct this study, I creat ed new scales to measure constructs that capture preferences related to various aspects of classroom-based leadership development programs. Drawing on the literature review and the conceptual framework of this study, I used existing items, which were part of the large scale survey (LSS contained 115 in total), to create scales for this study. I have classified 64 items of the LSS, which could be reasonably grouped into scales, to form seven constructs that represent various aspects of classroom-based leadership programs. Overall, I used 64 items (of the 74 items dedicated to learning preferences), five items (of the 13 item s dedicated to the demographics information), and eight items (of the 28 items from the Hofstede module) to generate the results. This section describes what the constructs are and how the scales were constructed. Six of the constructs were used as dependent variables: learning activities (LA), leadership competencies (LC), motivational en ablers (ME), barriers to participation (BP), learning environment (LE), and in structor™s characteristics (IC). The seventh construct entitled homogeneity (HO) was used as an independent variable instead and will be elaborated on later in this chapter. The items that compose each constr uct, their respective fact or loadings, and their 84 computed Cronbach™s alpha are found in Tables 6-12. The Cronbach alpha for all the scales were considerably high showing a high internal consistency and that items grouped together under each scale are closely related as a group. Independent variables include regional areas (two regions, 11 nationalities), Hofstede™s cultural values/dimensions (PDI and UAI), demographics (g ender, educational background, sector and age), and the construct homogeneity (HO). Table 10 describes what each variable stands for and how it was computed. All constructs™ measures reflect how important the items nominated by the Delphi experts are to executives (learners who have taken the LS S survey). The Delphi items may be viewed as the desirable practices valued by the experts. The scales items on the LSS may be considered as the desired practices selected by the executives. Based on the literature reviewed the majority of the items relatively reflect many approaches to le arning adopted in the West. In particular, a high score on LA means, the individual prefers practices related to experiential learning approaches. A relatively low score on LA means, the res pondent shows higher preference for traditional approaches to learning (rote learning). A high score on LC reflect, generally speaking, leadership qualities that are taught in Western executive edu cation programs (e.g., fuses elements of trait, situational, relational, ethical, and servant models of leadership). A low score on LC reflect an authoritarian approach of leadership. A high score on ME demonstrates how much executives attach importance to the items nominated by th e experts (e.g., common to Western motivational enablers (i.e., goal, activity, and knowledge orientations as well as practical and clear content). A low score on ME indicates a lower emphasis on items nominated by executives. A high score on BP show that the respondent does not attach the same importa nce to barriers participation identified by the Delphi experts and focus gr oup interviewees (e.g., dispositional and situational 85 barriers commonly included in West ern literature). Similarly, a high score of LE show agreement between experts and executives and to some ex tent mirror aspects of leadership development programs incorporated in Western classrooms (i.e ., digitally connected physical space that has university like features, comfortable, and outside the workplace environment with course materials, which reinforce industry best practice s and allow for an immersive experience). A low score of LE reflect an inclination that turns aw ay from best practices adopted in the Western leadership development programs. A high score on IC reflects a preference for a facilitator who is able to engage the audience, with business leadership experience, a nd with a high pedigree qualification. A low score on IC demonstrate a preference towards an instructor who delivers knowledge through lectures and theories using a didactic approach and little interaction with participants. HO does not have an equivalent in Western literature but a high score on HO reflects the affinity of executives to choose aspects of leadership development programs that are similar to their cultura l backgrounds and characteristics (e.g., same gender, same nationality, content in native language, and instruction attuned to Arabic methods). In regards to the 64 items which were extracted to form the scales of the seven constructs (LA, LC, BP, ME, LE, IC and HO), a two pronged approach was used to create the scales of this study. First, based on my own judgement, several items were dropped/unused, as they were redundant in conveying meanings to be measured or sought to capture the same meaning in an opposite direction. For example, fiInstructor from a Western countryfl was eliminated. Instead, fiInstructor from an Arab countr y,fl fiInstructor from the same countryfl and fiInstructor from a different Arab countryfl were used in creating the homogene ity scale to convey congruence between Arab executives with the nationality/culture of the preferred instructor. Similarly, 86 fiParticipants are balanced between males and fe malesfl was not included; instead, fiParticipants are from the same gender as mefl was included in the homogeneity scale, as it reflects congruence with participants ow n gender. In another case, item nine, which was a multiple choice (with three different learning activities options), was dropped, as it did not match the likert scale common to other items. Then, an iterative method was used to determine which items should be included in a scale. Based on the theoretical framework of the study and literature reviewed, items were assembled in the scales. Then, factor analys is of all items was conducted to confirm and represent the strength of the association between th e variable and the unobser ved or latent factor. For example, even though fiNotebook allowing an opportunity for writing individual reflections and practical ways to implementfl had a low factor loading of 0.396, it was kept in the Learning Environment scale, as it represen ts the type of course material s that would be needed in an experiential learning environment where individu als reflect on their experiences and related content to practical scenarios (Beard & Wilson, 2013). In an other instance, item 51, which measures the importance of fifamily connecti ons and personal connectionsfl in becoming a business leader, aligns theoretically well with ot her items such as fipersonal qualitiesfl and fijob- related competenciesfl under the Leadership Comp etencies (LC) scale. However, when placed under LC, item 51™s factor loading was 0.07. When I placed item 51 under the Homogeneity (HO) scale, its factor loading increased to 0.5. With 625 executives (out of 837) scoring it Figure 7: Development Session Preference Item 87 between 4 and 5, item 51 not only shows that over 75% of executives agree that having family or interpersonal connections is an important conduit to leadership advancement, but also reveals the value of feeling associated or personal with chosen leaders. Across the scales, the majority of items™ factor loadings were above 0.6, which means that selected items strongly associate with the latent variables represented in their corresponding scale (see Figure 9). The strong correlations among the majority of the constructs (shown in Table 4) were statistically significant, which means that the constructs may share a common trait which account for learning preference. It should be noted that HO portrays a weaker (moderate) correlation with the rest of the scales. Table 4: Correlations Learning Activities Leadership Competen cies Motivati onal Enablers Barriers to Participation Learning Environment Instructor Characteristics Homogen eity Learning Activities 1 .804** .803** .66** .82** .77** .39** Leadership Competencies 1 .88** .68** .80** .79** .38** Figure 8: Leadership Qualities Item 88 Table 4 (cont™d) Motivational Enablers 1 .67** .79** .78** .36** Barriers to Participation 1 .71** .68** .49** Learning Environment 1 .81** .52** Instructor Characteristics 1 .50** Homogeneity 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Figure 9: Factor Loading It should be noted that none of the scales perfectly capture the construct either from a Western or Arab perspective. However, the s cales adopted and created through the Delphi and 89 focused interviews, attempt to address the sc arce empirical research around classroom-based leadership development practices in the Arab co ntext and avoid the risk of overlooking valuable local nuances by limiting the study with Western- centric constructs. Table 5 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the mean scores of all the constructs. The construct scores were calculated for each participant with the items™ scores summed and then divided by the total number of items. The skewness was between -1 a nd 1, which indicate a normally distributed of data. Table 5: Construct Scores Descriptive Statistics for Construct Scores Construct Mean Std. Dev Min Max N Skew ness Learning Activities 4.20 0.66 1.89 5 837 -.40 Leadership Competencies 4.30 0.62 2.55 5 837 -.54 Motivational Enablers 4.23 0.71 1.4 5 837 -.51 Barriers to Participation 4.08 0.67 1.5 5 837 -.22 Learning Environment 4.10 0.64 2.55 5 837 -.51 Instructor's Characteristics 4.22 0.68 2 5 837 -.18 Homogeneity 3.85 0.66 1.8 5 837 -.34 Preferred learning activities (LA). The scale attempted to capture preferences highly ranked by the experts as effective classroom activities. They were as follows: collaborative problem solving, simulations, sessions delivered by practitioners, ice-breaking activities, case studies, interaction with participants and instructors, role playing, and opportunities for talking and less reading. Collectively, these preferences reflect experiential learning practices employed 90 in professional development courses (Beard & Wilson, 2013). As found in previous research, these items were positively correlated, and I th erefore averaged them into a single overall preferred learning activity construct (refer to Table 6). As such, a high score on the 5-point Likert scale shows an in clination towards experien tial learning practices. Table 6: Learning Activities Items Rate the effect of the following training activit ies on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect), 4 (some positive effect), 3 (no effect positive or negative), 2 (some negative effect) and 1 (strong negative effect) Learning Activities (Cronbach's Alpha = .897) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (3) Collaborative problem solving of non-work problems, like building a plane. 0.75 (7) Use of simulation tools 0.74 (6) Inviting key speakers /practitioners from the business community 0.736 (4) Icebreaker activities 0.71 (5) Interacting with the instructor 0.698 (8) Role playing exercises 0.696 (2) Interacting with other participants 0.68 (24) More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 0.66 (1) Case studies 0.64 Desired leadership competencies (LC). This scale represents the critical essential competencies and skills for effective Arab l eadership according to experts™ top rated ranking. The scale included problem solving ab ility, ability to meet targets, ab ility to lead teams, effective management during crisis and analysis of work situations, ability to se rve as a role model, 91 charisma, democratic decision making, presentati on skills, and personality qualities as well as job related competencies. These descriptors reso nate with the need to develop both types of abilities (i.e., internal and external) that place leaders on a firm ground for completing their tasks (Al-Dabbagh and Assaad, 2010). As has been found in previous research, a high emphasis is placed on personal qualities such as charisma (i .e., trait leadership; Mameli, 2013). Even though democratic decision making processe s and ability to meet targets or job-related competencies are not overtly discussed in literature on Arab leadership, the two items were added to the LC construct. They seem timely in addressing the need for a high performance culture (Combs et al., 2006) and the conflicting results from the literature around the nature of the decision making process (i.e., authoritative, pseudo-participatory, or consultative). The score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to executives™ beliefs on the importa nce of each of the leadership competencies shown in Table 7. Table 7: Leadership Competencies Items Rate the effect of the following qualities or abilities in terms of how important they are to develop among participants in leadership develo pment on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. Leadership Competencies (Cronbach's Alpha = .91) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (43) Problem solving ability 0.84 (42) Ability to meet targets or goals 0.82 (41) Ability to build and lead teams 0.78 (46) Effective management during periods of crisis 0.77 (47) Charisma 0.74 (45) Effective analysis of work situations 0.73 (44) Ability to serve as a role model 0.72 92 Table 7 (cont™d) (48) Democratic decision-making processes 0.65 (49) Presentation skills 0.63 (52) Job-related competencies 0.52 (50) Personality qualities 0.51 Perceived motivation enablers (ME). The Delphi experts scored 10 items as highly important to motivate leaders to partake in professional development programs. Enablers included opportunity to network with other professionals and refresh thinking, practicality of content, quality and relevance of the syllabus, desi re to see the big picture, learn new skills and go beyond what is required from the job, clarit y of learning objectives, requirement of the organization, and extent to which training w ill contribute to participants™ company. These motivation enablers reflect Houle™s (1961) typology of adult learners™ learning goals and learning orientations: goal-oriented, activity-oriented learners; and learning-oriented learners. The purpose of this scale is not to examine H oule™s trinity hypothesis, however, a high score on the 5-point Likert scale shows agreement betw een executives and experts on the most salient drivers for participation. An analysis of individual items will be required to link the specific enablers to executives™ backgrounds. Notably, the score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to executives™ beliefs on the importance of each of the mo tivation enablers shown in the Table 8. (Rate the effect of the following factors in terms of how important they are in motivating you to participate in leadership deve lopment sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important.) 93 Table 8: Motivational Enabler Items Motivational Enablers (Cronbach's Alpha = .943) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (55) Opportunity to network 0.4 (60) Practicality of the content offered 0.82 (56) Clarity of the objectives 0.81 (54) Desire to broaden horizon and see the big picture 0.80 (59) Requirements of the organization 0.80 (58) Relevance and quality of the programme syllabus 0.79 (61) Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (per sonal development) 0.79 (62) Extent to which training will co ntribute to participants™ company 0.78 (53) Opportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices) 0.74 (57) Desire to go beyond and not just following orders 0.739 Perceived barriers to participation (BP). In regards to highly ranked barriers to learning, experts acknowledge that timing of the program, poor reput ation of training providers, too much content used in training, perception ab out training, location of the program, level of difficulty, and cultural hurdles to females are critic al to executive™s participation in leadership programs. The scale chosen to represent the c onstruct BP confirms Johnstone and Rivera™s (1965) clustering of barriers to participation into two groups: internal, or dispositional, barriers, and external, or situational, ones. The reputation of the program or pedigree of the institution, while understated in Western litera ture, has been included in the scale due to its pertinence to the Arab region, where low quality training providers and business schools are more common. To create a single score for each respondent, I have averaged the eight items into an individual BP 94 score. The score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to ex ecutives™ beliefs on the importance of various elements which may act as barriers to participa tion (shown in Table 9). Table 9: Barriers to Participation Rate the effect of the following factors in terms of how important they are as barriers to participating in leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important. Barriers to Participation (Cronbach's Alpha = .84) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (68) The corporate culture 0.77 (70) Too much content used in the training 0.743 (69) Perception about training 0.742 (66) Timing of the program 0.69 (72) Location of the training too far away from home 0.67 (74) Level of difficulty of the training (either above or below your level) 0.63 (71) Cultural hurdles for females 0.498 (67) Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 0.46 Learning environment (LE). Learning environment has been conceptualized in this study to include both training location (physical environment) and course materials. The scale used to create this construct included such items as facilities available to relax, large and well equipped classroom similar to a university campus, facilities with access to internet and library, and outside the workplace setting. To represent priorities related to course materials, items such as content with summary page, book relevant to cu rrent best practices, materials with graphical illustrations, notebook for reflections, handouts, read ings on flash disk, and pre-readings were also added to the scale. Those items mirror some aspects of learning environments which 95 promote experiential learning pr actices (e.g., Kolb™s 1984 learning styles). Although this scale has not been either conceptually or empirically tested, I speculate that this construct will shed light on executives™ preferences (across age leve ls, in particular) for the physical classroom elements that they may deem conducive to learnin g. The score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to executives™ preferences towards various training location and materials attributes (shown in Table 10). Table 10: Learning Environment Items Rate the effect of the following aspects of the training location on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. Learning Environment (Cronbach's Alpha = .882) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (12) Facilities available to relax 0.71 (34) Content with summary page 0.682 (10) Large, well-equipped place like uni versity or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotel 0.681 (13) Facilities with access to wireless network and library 0.67 (11) Outside the normal work environment 0.66 (37) Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers 0.651 (33) Materials illustrated with diagrams and graphics 0.65 (36) Lecture handouts and readings saved on a flash disk 0.648 (35) Materials accessible on the We b (virtual learning environment) 0.64 (40) Pre-reading materials provided 0.62 (39) Notebook allowing an opportunity for writing individual reflections and practical ways to implement 0.396 96 Instructor™s characteristics (IC). To operationalize the IC construct, from the LSS, I extracted the following items to create the scale: fii nstructor has experience as a business leader,fl fiinstructor is able to explain the meaning and i llustration of the content and use real examples,fl fiinstructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience,fl fiinstructor is famous as a business leader,fl and fithe instructor is from a well-known university.fl Those qualities align with some of the Western and Arabic literature that emphasize the need for instructors to engage participants through effective facilitation skills (Tootoonchi, Lyons, & Hagen, 2002). The two items related to the instructor ™s background (famous business leader and graduated from a well- known university) are atypical in the reviewed research, but their inclusion reinforces the need to establish a proven track of being a successful leader and credibility in the classroom. The score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to executives™ preferences towards instructor™s characteristics shown in Table 11. Table 11: Instructor 's Characteristics Rate the effect of the following instructor qualities on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive e ffect and one being a strong negative effect. Instructor's Characteristics (Cronbach's Alpha = .80) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (21) Instructor has experience as a business leader 0.72 (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples 0.691 (25) Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 0.66 (23) Instructor is famous as a business leader 0.65 (30) The instructor is from a well-known university 0.645 97 Regional areas. In the LSS, respondents selected thei r place of birth, which corresponds with one of the regions MENA Levant or MENA Gulf. Socioeconomic and political factors differ greatly across both regions. Those factors will be described and associated to how executives approach learning. Although the LSS included both questions about nationality and nationality at birth, I have chosen to use nationality at birth (which may often differ from nationality), as it is common practice for many Arab executives to hold two passports (a foreign and Arab). To suit the purpose of this study, I am interested in their Arabic nationality rather than their dual citizenship/additional passport. Items from the LSS that include the nationality options are shown in figure 10. Figure 10: Nationality Options Hofstede™s cultural values. These cultural dimensions, also called national values, have been defined by Hofstede (2001). Hofstede™s 28 items aim at measuring seven cultural dimensions (four items per dimension). 98 For the purpose of this study, only two dime nsions will be examined: Power Distance Index (PDI) and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI). PDI represents the employee-manager relationship (in this case teach er-student) and UAI reflects ho w individuals respond to formal organizations (in this case structured classroom rules). Hofstede (2010) created the indices using both a theoretical reasoni ng (discussed below) and statistics (ecological correlation analysis). The computation of indices originally derives from a comparison of subsidiaries of the IBM Corporation in 40 countries (Hofstede et al., 2008). As such, the formulae created by Hofstede (2010) and included in his Values Survey Module (Hofstede et al., 2008) aims to measure differences between national cultures and draw on the standardized values that validate the comparisons between nations. On the basis of four items per dimension, one can calculate a cultural index to compare two or more countries, regions within countries, or ethnic groups. The survey items attributed to a dimension were se lected by comparing samples from other countries and identifying the dimensions that vary sim ilarly across the four questions (i.e., the mean country scores on questions belonging to different dimensions are usually uncorrelated). The computation of the country indices use mean percen tage values associated with the survey items, which were scored on a 5-point scale (1 = very frequently/of utmost importance, 5 = very seldom/very little importance), then multiplied by a factor that make their range and contribution to the index. The theoretical reasoning for th e choice of items and the actual formulae to calculate PDI and UAI are as follows: PDI items from LSS. Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to – (please circle one answer in each line 99 across): 1 = of utmost importance, 2 = very impor tant, 3 = of moderate importance, 4 = of little importance, 5 = of very little or no importance. (76) Have a boss (direct superior) you can respect (81) Be consulted by your boss in decisions involving your work In your private life, how important is each of the following to you. 1 = of utmost importance, 2 = very important, 3 = of moderate im portance, 4 = of little importance, 5 = of very little or no importance. (97) How often, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to contradict their boss (or students their teacher?) To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle one answer in each line ac ross): 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. (100) An organization structure in which ce rtain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all cost UAI items from LSS. In your private life, how important is each of the following to you. 1 = of utmost importance, 2 = very important, 3 = of moderate im portance, 4 = of little importance, 5 = of very little or no importance. (90) How often do you feel nervous or tense? (94) All in all, how would you describe your state of health these days? (98) One can be a good manager without having a precise answer to every question that a subordinate may raise about his or her work 100 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle one answer in each line ac ross): 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. (101) A company™s or organization™s rules should not be broken, even when the employee thinks breaking the rule would be in the organization™s best interest. Formulae. PDI = 35(m81 Œ m76) + 25(m97 Œ m100) + C(pd) In this case, m97 is the mean score for it em 97 and C(pd) = 30 (this was chosen because the lowest raw PDI score was -25.4; thus, 30 would bring that number above 0). The index usually ranges between 100 (large PDI) and zero (small PDI). C(pd) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends on the nature of the samples. It does no t affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift the country PDI scores to values between 0 and 100. The same rationale for calculation applies fo r other indices. The mean scores have been multiplied by 35 and 25 to make the range and their contributions to the PDI. PDI fiis a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between the boss and subordinate as perceived by the less powerful of the twofl (Hofstede, 2001, p. 83). To measure national differences in power distance, items se ek to capture employees™ perception on whether employees are afraid to disagree with their ma nagers, subordinates™ perception that their boss tends to take decisions in an autocratic or persuasive/paternalistic way, and subordinates™ preference for anything but a consultative style of decision making in their boss. UAI = 40(m94 - m90) + 25(m98 Œ m101) + C(ua) C(ua) = 80 (this was chosen because the lo west raw UAI score was -71.15, thus 80 would bring that number above 0). The function of the c onstant and multipliers are similar to those used 101 for PDI. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures avoid ambiguity and look for structure in their organizations, which makes events clearly interp retable and predictable. Paradoxically, societies with high UAI may often engage in a risky beha vior in an attempt to reduce ambiguities (e.g., engage in war with an opponent rather than waiting for the unknown). Members with lower UAI tolerate ambiguities more easily and are more prone to change jobs and start a new business (Hofstede, 2001). Item 101 indicates that employ ees portray a high rule orientation and avoid breaking the rules, demonstrating a high uncertain ty avoidance. The stress related item 90 is usually correlated with jobs that are low in satisfaction, where employees feel that their perceptions of alternatives in decision making have been re duced. Hofstede (2001) contends that this type of stress is fidue to sociocultural environment (in the fo rm of differences among nationalities) and due to one organizational factor, occupationfl (p. 149), rather than personality or nonwork situations. When the level of anxiety is high, people try to cope with their stress by searching for security, which is visible in the rule orientation (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede argues that occupations that fiposed risks of physiological and mental disorders were those combining high stress with low satisfactionfl (2001, p. 149). As such, in spite of the stress™ soft subjective character, it may manifest itse lf through an objective consequence and affect the metabolism of the body affecting the physical and mental heal th as well as the performance of employees. Consequently, UAI is computed on the basis of the country mean scores for the three main factors: rule orientation (agreement with the statement that comp any rules should not be broken), certainty to have all answers to ambiguous situ ations addressed, and stress levels (nervousness and health concerns). Validity and reliability of indices. The ecological dimensions us ed to capture differences in nations have been proven stable and validated against several external measurements and 102 replications without loss of validity (as demonstrated by Barkema & Vermeulen, 1997). A cautionary note, though--the indices should not be the only suitable way of measuring culture. The study will complement the natio n unit (Hofstede™s indices) anal ysis with information related to socioeconomic and political dimensions th at represent the populations in this study. The mean scores of four items that represent an index are highly correlated across nations (Cronbach alphas for IBM standardized items are .842 for PDI and .715 for UAI). However, the correlations among the four items across individual s are virtually zero. For example, it is not necessarily that an individual who perceives his or her own supervisor as autocratic will also describe colleagues as afraid and will prefer an autocratic boss (i.e., the individual does not adopt a consultative approach). The power distance measured can on ly be used to reflect the characteristics/climate/regime of social systems and not of individuals (Hofstede, 2001). In terms of reliability for responses to these items within the LSS, the Cronbach alpha coefficient across individuals are irrelevant. Matching samples. In order to make valid cross-cu ltural comparisons, Hofstede (2001) advise that subjects from various cultural groups are ma tched in terms of background characteristics. This way differe nces may be explained due to cu ltural differences rather than differences specific to the sample . Ruling out the alternative explanations (e.g. educational level, work responsibilities, etc.) reduces the influence of unwanted intergroup variance and refocuses on observed cultural differences. Schwartz (1992, 1994) enhanced comparability of his subjects by investigating a sample of secondary school teachers from different countries. Should matching prove hard to achieve, it is advisable to treat major dem ographic variables as covariates in the data analysis. For instance, researchers examining the deli nquent behaviors of adolescents in Hong Kong, Australia and the United States found that the educational standing of fathers in 103 Hong Kong was notably lower than that of the fath ers of the Australian and American samples. To address this issue, the research team conducted an analysis of covariance to partial out the effect of the educational background of the father. Several cross-cultural studies tend to disregard sample differences or fail to evaluate the im pact of such differences, causing confounded results to produce ambiguous conclusions (Berry, 2006). As the samples of executives were already matched in terms of their professional designa tion (business leaders) and ensured that they represent both the public and private sectors, ot her critical demographics will be treated as covariates and examined in this study. Demographics. For the purpose of this study, in formation about participants™ demographics was collected through items related to gender, age, type of education, and sector. Age. To create the scale for the age variable, LSS items were categorized into three groups: Millennials (options 2, 3 and 4 from item question 104 ); Gen X (options 5 and 6); and Boomers and Veterans (options 7 and 8). Figure 11: Age Item Based on the literature reviewed, Aycan and co lleagues (2007) have indicated that many, particularly the Millenn ials (i.e., born between 1977 and 1995), may exhibit leadership preferences different from employees older th an them. This study will attempt to examine variability across generations. ‚Generation™ as a construct has been investigated by scholars in various disciplines related to social studies, not ably in business management literature (Joshi, Dencker, Franz, & Martocchio, 2010). Giancola (2006) contends that fithe generational approach may be more popular culture than social sciencefl (p. 33). Gene ration is often defined as an 104 fiidentifiable group that shares birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical developmental stagesfl (Kupperschmidt, 2000, p. 66). Differences between generations are theorized to occur due to major influences in societies which impact development of personality, values, beliefs and expectations that become stable as individuals transition into adulthood (Noble & Schewe, 2003 and Twenge & Campbell, 2008) . The socio-cultural events include wars (Noble & Schewe, 2003), the digital age, and significant changes to economic patterns that influence personality traits, work values, and motivations to work (Egri & Ralston, 2004). To date, most research in this field has been limite d to the West and Asia. None of the studies, however, examined the behaviors an d attitudes of generations in the Arab world. There seems to be a consensus that generations can be grouped into Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y (Kupperschmidt, 2000). The key charac teristics of the different generations are outlined in the section below. Veterans. Veterans are born before 1945 and are also called traditionalists. They are influenced by the Great Depression, World War II, and have witnessed the rise of television networks and mass marketing. Vete rans view education as a dream and leisure as a reward for hard work. They aspire for stability in life, a predicted career ladder, and they are loyal and consistent. Additionally, they value integrity (Kim, 2008), commitment (Schaming, 2010), hard work and authority (Rood, 2011). Their main dr ivers are security and achieving status (Schaming, 2005). Baby Boomers. Also known as the Woodstock generation, (Murphy & Gibson, 2007) Baby boomers experienced the post-war stress and prosperity, witnessed radical social changes including the emergence of the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the women's movement (Egri & Ralston, 2004; Smola & Su tton, 2002), the sexual revolution (Smola & 105 Sutton, 2002) as well as rapid technology change. Baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1965. Members of this generation view themselves as game changers, enjoy the notion of lifetime employment, seek progress, and dedicate themselves to work, with little work/life balance (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Their main driv ers are financial remuneration and selfŒ realization (Schaming, 2005). Gen X. Gen Xers are also known as the MTV generation. Their birth years range from 1966 to 1976. This era experienced periods of economic prosperity and also stress due to the early 1980s recession (Krywulak & Roberts, 2009). They have lived in the shadow of the influential Boomer generation and, as a result, are cynical, self-re liant, entrepreneurial, market savvy, resilient and adaptable (Rood, 2011). Based on an online survey published by Ernst & Young (2013), out of 200 respondents, 57% believed that Gen X were thought to be best at managing through difficult times. Millennials or Gen Y. Millennials have lived the era of globalisation and employment outsourcing (Krywulak & Roberts, 2009). The Y generation, also referred to as "Millennials" were born between 1977 and 1995. They were raised during the good time or empowerment years and are the first generation to grow up during the internet age. According to a report published by Adecco (2013) on workplace revolution that outlined Gen Y™s work ethics and behaviours, this generation values a work/life ba lance, working in a creative and participatory environment, multi-tasking, globa l connectedness, environmental stewardship and professional development. They have an accentuated attit ude of entitlement (Ernst & Young, 2013), have low loyalty to the institution they work in, are connected 24/7 on social networking sites, and have high expectations of self and employers (Armour, 2005). 106 While the generational differences have been highlighted in several studies, defining, categorizing, and specifying generations depends on the unique political, socioeconomic, and cultural makeup of their society (Hole, 2010) . Studies propose that although generational differences may create conflicts in the workplace due to differences in approaching training, leadership practices, work ethics, and career development (Berl, 2006; Tulgan, 2000), they may not hold true across cultures/nations (Yu & Miller, 2005). For the purpose of this study, three generational groups have been created to explore differences in leadership development preferences among (a) the Mille nnials, (b) Gen X and (c) Baby boomers, which have been clustered in the same category of Veterans. Type of education. The type of education was divided into two groups: Western educated and Arabic educated. The type of education wa s labeled Western if th e participant selected Western or mixed curricula and Arab if the pa rticipant selected Arabic curriculum. Choices associated with high school type of education (item 107) were used for the scale based on the assumption that the acculturation of Western practices are higher earlier in adulthood. Figure 12: Education and Training Item Sector. Public sector and NGO were merged to form the public sector group. 107 Figure 13: Work Sector Item Homogeneity. Items that fall into this construct demonstrate an individual™s high preference for an Arab instructor, Arabic langua ge of instruction, same gender participants, materials provided in Arabic, and leaders appoi nted based on family/interpersonal connections (see Table 10 for items, factor loading, and Cronb ach alpha). Based on the reviewed literature, a common concern was repeatedly expressed by Arab executives which linked their challenge to embrace modernization to their f ear of loss of national identity and culture dilution (Ali, 1992; Wilkins, 2001; Willemyns, 2008). The attachment to identity or affinity towards one™s culture are represented in a construct I have created for this study. Those items related to cultural congruity between the leadership development se ssions and the participants may yield important data related to the focus of this study. The score on this scale reflects the mean of items related to executives™ beliefs on the importance of various leadership development aspects that resonate with cultural congruity shown in Table 10. Executives™ ratings were based on how important factors are to effective leadership development on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important. A high scor e shows that executives are more inclined to choose an instructor from the same background/na tionality, participants with the same gender and nationality, instruction attuned to same Arab culture, leaders selected based on family or personal connections, and language of content and instruction of native language. During some of the preliminary exploration of the data, it appeared that homogeneity (HO) was the only construct which was not statistically significant between the two regions. Since the HO scale embodies cultural preference s that represent preservation of individual™s 108 identity and an affinity to choose classroom aspects identical to executives™ own gender, nationality, and approaches to learning, it seemed that HO beha ved like PDI and UAI indices reflecting personal values (i.e., individual characteristics). For this reason, I placed HO in level 1 of the HLM model. When HO was introduced to the model, I was able to explain that more than 15% in level 1 of variance occurred in the dependent variable (compared to explaining only 5% differences in dependent variable between people prior to adding HO in the model as a L1 independent variable). As homogeneity has no matc h in the Western literature and has not been operationalized in empirical studies in the Ar ab-related research, HO has its limitations in reliability and validity. For this reason, results from statistical analysis should be used cautiously. Table 12: Homogeneity Items [Since items for HO have been pulled from se veral sections of the LSS, no one single stem question applies to all items . Instead, in general, the respondent was asked to rate the level of agreement of the effect of the item/practice on leadership de velopment sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important/strong posi tive effect and one being least important/strong negative effect.] Homogeneity (Cronbach's Alpha = .83) LSS Item Number and Description Factor Loading (28) Instructor is Arab 0.74 (18) Participants are all Arabs 0.69 (65) Instructor from a different Arab country 0.68 (31) Instructor is the same gender as me 0.678 (38) Materials provided in Arabic language 0.65 (20) Participants are from the same gender as me 0.53 (51) Family connections or interpersonal connections 0.495 (27) Instructor is from the same country 0.45 109 Table 12 (cont™d) (73) Language of the program (Native Language) 0.44 (26) Instruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture 0.361 Data Analysis to Address the Research Questions In this section, I discuss the statistical methods that addres s the five research questions. The first part will elaborate on methods used to address questions one and two, which are related to the Delphi experts™ recommendations. The second part will discuss the methods employed to address questions three, four and five, which are linked to executives™ background. Delphi experts™ related questions. Q1- What are the most effective Arab lead ership development practices (i.e. learning activities, leadership competencies, motivational enablers, barriers to participation, learning environment, and instructor™s characteris tics) as identified by training experts? To answer the first question, data collected from the 24 Delphi experts will be examined. 181 items will be matched with the constructs of the study: Learning Activities, Leadership Competencies, Motivation Enablers, Particip ation Barriers, Learning Environment, and Instructor Characteristics. Then, items will be co mpared to the reviewed literature that discussed leadership development best practices in the Arab classroom. Findings will show how experts prioritized those items (by ranking mean ratings) that they deem most important to various aspects of classroom-based leadership development programs. Q2- What are the similarities and differences between experts™ and Arab learners™ views of best leadership development practices (i.e . learning activities, leadership competencies, motivational enablers, barriers to participation, learning environmen t, and instructor™s characteristics)? 110 The top expert responses from the Delphi were incorporated into the Large Scale Survey (LSS). Thus, one of the main purposes of the LSS was to assess the degree to which Arab leaders and executives (learners) agree with the experts™ views on leadership development practices. To address Q2, I will compare the De lphi items with the LSS. Firs t, all items common (50 items) between the two surveys (Delphi and LSS) will be matched to correspond with the seven constructs. Second, to identify agreements and differences between experts and executives™ views, I will determine if any of the responses ar e statistically different between the two samples (experts vs. executives), a Mann-Whitney U te st was conducted. The null hypothesis assumes that the scores of the items from the two samp les are the same or dist ributed equally. The Mann-Whitney U looks at item score distribution between the two groups (executives and experts). To further examine the difference of the two di stributions, the means of each items or both executives and experts, will be calculated, categorized according to the study constructs, highlighting with an asterisk the items that were found to have statistically significant differences. Q3- How do geographical regional differences relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development programs (i.e. learning activities, leadership competencies, motivational enable rs, barriers to participation, learning environment, and instructor™s characteristics)? Executives™ background questions. None of the studies thus far have gauged experts™ views on leadership development practices in th e Arab world using the Delphi procedures or compared experts™ recommendations to execu tives™ learning prefer ences across the MENA region. None of the studies have examined both how individual characteristics as well as national values relate to learning preferences using hierarchical linear m odeling (HLM). This is why it is 111 important to discuss briefly the use of HLM in re search studying culture at the national level as well as its citizens™ individual characteristics. HLM offers an opportunity to examine mu ltilevel social processes and variables, including those central to this study -- cultural values across Arab countries as well as the socioeconomic and political forces that vary across geographies within the Arab region. The micro level examines a number of between indivi duals™ relationships across societies. The macro level leverages the between-society correlation, which is based on mean square of the variables for each society. HLM, also referred to as multilevel modeling, multilevel analysis, or mixed models, is a statistical method that controls for data dependence and permits researchers to examine individual- and group-level variables simultaneously (Warne, Li, McKyer, Condie, Diep, & Murano, 2012). By ignoring the nesting or clustering present in our data, traditional regression techniques would violate the independence assumption, which could lead to smaller standard errors and increase the chance of Type I errors (i.e., higher probability of detecting statistical significance) (Tekleselassi, Mallery, & Choi, 2013). Aggregating individual-level variables to higher-order variables to conduct an analysis on a higher level using traditional regression techniques discards a ll within-group information (because it takes the average of the individual level variables) and wastes roughly 80-90% of the variance that is often present between individuals (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1988). In cultural psychology, particularly, researchers correlating data through the survey method to investigate between societies trends ofte n fall into the ecological fallacy trap. For data collected at the level of the society to compar e societies, we should be focusing only on the ‚between-society™ correlations (also called ecologi cal correlations). Any attempt to treat within- society correlations (individual level) as equivalent to between-society correlations may cause an 112 ecological fallacy. An example of such is f ound in the work of Robinson (1950, p. 352). This example deals with the connection between skin color and illiteracy in the United States. Relating percentages of blacks in the population and percentages of illiterates in nine geographical areas based on 1930 data showed that the ecological correlation was r = 0.95. Across 97 million individuals, the individual correlation was r = 0.20. The ecological fallacy happens when ecological correlations are interpre ted as if they apply to individuals. Ecological fallacies are easy to fall into, as ecological corr elations are often more powerful than individual correlations. It is also possible for social psychologists studying cultures to reach another type of confusion called ‚reverse ecological fallacy,™ in which cultures are treated as if they were individuals. This is commonly committed when i ndexes for individuals and cultures are created through the same questionnaire items. Usually, to c onstruct indexes for individuals, items of the questionnaire should correlate at the individual level. If researchers ought to construct indexes for societies, items of the questi onnaire have to correlate at the society level. When researchers fail to test whether items correlate with the corresponding level, they draw inaccurate conclusions. Ecological fallacies can be avoided. Ecological and individual correlations can be appropriately studied by tapping simultaneously on the same database to better understand the dynamics of complex social systems. An exam ple of a multilevel resear ch is a study conducted by Lincoln and Zeitz (1980), who examined 500 employees divided over 20 U.S social service agencies. They found that professional qualification and supervisory duties were positively correlated across individuals and negatively correlated across agencies. This is due to the fact that the more professional ag encies required less supervision. Ecological dimensions can be effectively investigated by conducting the right level of correlations and when we have data from more (e.g. 10 or 15) societies (Hofstede, 2001). 113 Hence, appropriately studying the variation that occurs within and between nations™ phenomena may enrich our understanding of leader ship development and conceptualization of future research in this area. Data collected th rough the LSS survey is selectively analyzed to compute indices for individual (e.g., homogeneity™ s relationship with learning preferences) as well as nation (e.g., cultural values™ relationship with average learning preferences) level correlations. An HLM model was run to represent the variations among executives taking into consideration both individual and country level characteristics. The HLM models were created and analyzed using the computer program HLM for Window HLM So ftware (Version 7.01, Copyright 1996-2013). To address Q3, the clustering of individuals within countries clustered into regions needs to be taken into account. As several socioeconomic and political influences across MENA regions are not identical, investigating subcultures in geographical regions (Gulf vs. Levant) will shed light on the relationship between variab ility in learning preferences and executives™ background. For this reason, instead of running an independent samples t-test, which does not account for clustering, I have performed an HLM analysis, which accounts for the impact of the clustering on the standard errors. The HLM mode l of country effects developed in this study captures how learning preferences vary across in dividual characteristics (demographics and the construct homogeneity) and country level variables (regions and national values). As such, level two predictors will include region (Gulf and Leva nt) and national values (PDI and UAI). Level one predictors will encompass gender, age, s ector, educational background. The relationship between the predictors and executi ves™ approaches to various aspects of leadership development (leadership activities, leadership competencies , instructors™ qualities, learning environment, motivation enablers and perceived barriers) will be examined to determine the coefficient and 114 effect sizes. Coefficients will indicate how lear ning preferences vary with regard to executives™ background. The effect sizes are a measure of a magnitude of the relatio nship between predictor and the outcome variable. To conduct the analysis, I have standardized all seven constructs and then ran the two level HLM analysis with region being the only predictor. The resulting coefficients will show if there are statistically signif icant differences between the means of the two regions. Level 2 Predictors Hypothesis (t-test for each slope to determine which one is non-zero): H0: j = 0 (slope in population is 0, there is no regional difference for Learning Preferences) HA: j 0 (slope is not 0, there is a regional difference for Learning Preferences) For further exploration in the regional differences, I performed a Mann-Whitney U test for each of the items within the constructs, to dete rmine if there are regional differences in mean responses of the items. Q4- How do cultural dimensions relate to le arning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development programs (i.e. learning activities, leadership competencies, learning goal orient ation, barriers to participation, learning environment, and instructor™s characteristics)? Similarly, and since we have individuals nested within c ountries, the HLM model was employed to examine the relationship between na tional cultural variables (Level 2, or country, predictors) and learning preferences. Level 1 (gender, age, sector, high school education, homogeneity) Level 2 (two Hofstede™s cultural dimensions, regions) Unconditional Model Hypothesis: 115 H0: second level variance = 0 HA: second level variance 0 Level 2 Predictors Hypothesis (t-test for each slope to determine which one(s) is/are non- zero): H0: j = 0 (slope in population is 0, the specific cultural dimension does not predict Learning Preferences) HA: j 0 (slope is not 0, the specific cultural dimension does predict Learning Preferences) Q5- How do learners™ characteristics (i.e. ge nder, sector, age and background education) and homogeneity relate to Arab prefer ences for leadership development? In order to address Q5, I have examined the HLM results of Level one predictors. Level one (gender, age, sector, high school education, homogeneity) Level two (two of Hofstede™s cultural dimensions, region) Unconditional Model Hypothesis: H0: second level variance = 0 HA: second level variance 0 Level 1 Predictors Hypothesis (t-test for each slope to determine which one(s) is/are non- zero): H0: j = 0 (slope in population is 0, the specific demographic variable does not predict Learning Preferences) HA: j 0 (slope is not 0, the specific dem ographic variable does predict Learning Preferences) 116 For the research questions that explore the relationship between learning preferences and the independent variables, I have attempted to pl ace the effect size within a comparable context (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004) by comparing effect sizes in existing studies which have examined learning preferences using regr ession models. Based on the Cohen d rule of thumb of effect sizes (small = 0.2 to 0.3; medi um = around 0.5; large = 0.8 to infinity), I will suggest priorities in relation to the recommendations that would improve leadership development programs. For further exploration in the demographic differences, I also performed a Mann-Whitney U test for each of the items within the construc ts to determine if ther e are gender, sector, or educational background differences in mean respons es of the items. I then performed a Kruskal- Wallis test to determine if any of the age groups were different from th e others. By comparing group differences at the item level, I sought to deep en my analysis (beyond the constructs and at item level) to help recommend practical ways for what constitute effective education for executives. 117 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Findings by Research Question The following section details key findings pertaining to this study™s research questions. While administration of the Delphi process, the LSS, and the Hofstede assessment produced substantial data, the study only includes findings related to the specific research questions and those with relevance to the design and facilitation of leadership training programs. This chapter (a) identifies best practices for Arab leadersh ip development according to experts™ views, (b) explores the comparison of experts™ views to executives™ preferences, and (c) examines the relationship between executives™ learning preferences and their background (i.e., region, nationality, and demographics). The latter will draw on the HLM model of country effects developed in this study and capture how learning preferences vary across level one variables (demographics and the construct of homogeneity ) and level two variables (regions and national values). Expert Recommendations of Best Practice Principles for Leadership Development What are the most effective Arab leadersh ip development practices as identified by training experts? To answer the first question of the study, 24 experts were interviewed using the Delphi procedure. The bar graphs below show the experts™ mean ratings and how they prioritized the items that they deemed most important to various aspects of classroom-based leadership development programs. Those dimensions were matched with the dependent variables of the study: Learning Activities, Leadership Compet encies, Motivation Enablers, Participation Barriers, Learning Environment, and Instructor Char acteristics. The grey bars represent selected items typical of Western practices (universal) as reflected in the re viewed literature. The red bars represent Arabic (local) practices emphasized in the Quran, Arabic English language scholarship 118 articles, and Arabic language publications focused on leadership in the Arab world. Findings represent recommendations from experts that in tegrate both universal (150 items) and local (24 items, which is 14% of the total Delphi items) approaches to leadership development. Each bar represents the mean of the item and the wide gray line represents the grand mean across the items within the construct. Figure 14: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Learning Activities Learning activities. Figure 14 shows selected items th at reflect Western (in grey) and Arabic (in red) practices. The full list of items is in included in Appendix A. The majority of practices that fall under the learni ng activities scale reinforce experiential learning instructional strategies common in Western literature. For exam ple, ficase studiesfl (which scored highest, with a mean of 4.63 out of 5), firole playing activit ies,fl ficollaborative problem solving of real problems,fl and fiexamining one™s own practice as a business leaderfl are learning activities that enable participants to immerse in and reflect on the learning experience (Fenwick, 2001; Beard & Wilson, 2013). Ten out of the 14 experts™ top recommendations relate to practices that involve social interaction, which is also promoted as a best practice in Western leadership development 119 sessions (e.g., fisharing ideas and experiences among participants,fl fiinteracting with instructor,fl and fiinteracting with business leadersfl). This seems to be equally important in the Arabic context as per Ali™s (1996) suggestion to use debates in theory building (called mudarasa and munatharah in Islam), where individuals introduce thei r perspectives and others comment on its strengths and weaknesses. In agreement with Gillespie and Riddle (2005), experts suggest that best practices should include recommendations such as fiinstruction is according to Arab culture, not Western culturefl (which scored the lowest, with a mean of 3.58 out of 5) and ficase studies are relevant to the Arab worldfl (mean score = 4.29). fiMore opportunities fo r talk, and less reading materialfl was another highly rated item (mean score of 4.38) and is preval ent in Arabic literature (Wilkins, 2001). This underscores the need to design activities that promote discussions and encourage learners to converse about content with less reading and cognitive overload. Moreover, experts, similar to Al-Husan and his colleagues (2014) and proponents of cross-cultural management prac tices (Hofstede, 2001), suggest that Arab executives would benefit from learning in a multicultural classroom with a heterogeneous makeup in terms of learners™ backgrounds (e.g., fiparticipants are from a range of different countriesfl and fiparticipants are from a range of different business sectorsfl). In comparison to the US, which is considered highly heterogeneous (Laurie, 1990), having participants from different backgrounds is unusual in the Middle East, an area considered much more firacially and culturally homogeneousfl (Bakhtari, 1995, p. 112). Furthermor e, based on the literature assessing the mismatch between Western and Arabic cultures , designing leadership programs that allow participants to experience various cross-cultural semantics and norms will help bridge the 120 psychic boundaries that commonly occur in the Mi ddle East as markets grow and become more globalized (Al-Husan et al., 2001). Figure 15: Delphi Experts' Selected It em Means for Leadership Competencies Leadership competencies. The leadership qualities prop osed by the Delphi experts cover a set of competencies and skills that draw from Western theories of leadership, such as trait, situational, relational (transactional, transformational and transc endental), ethical and servant perspectives. Several of the leadersh ip characteristics recommended by the experts overlap with existing Arab best practices (ideal le adership qualities), and others are more specific to the Arab context. The bar graph shows se lected items common to Western (in grey) and Arabic (in red) practices. The full list of items generated by the Delphi experts is included in Appendix A. For example, the highest ra nked qualities among the 62 leader ship characteristics that need to be taught in a leadership development program are fiability to be a team leaderfl and fitimely decision-making.fl Both scored 4.71 out of 5. 121 In agreement with both Western (Fitzpa trick & Collins-Sussman, 2012) and Arab scholars (Al Suwaidan, 2002), leadership reflects not only the space that exists between the leader and the followers but also the process of mobilizing followers to achieve a goal. Fitzpatrick and Collins-Sussman assert that fil eadership entails a dynamic relationship based on mutual influence and common purpose between leaders and collaborators in which both are moved to higher levels of motivation and moral development as they affect real, intended changefl (as cited in AlSarhi et al., 2004, p. 47) ). Similarly, Al-Dabbagh and Assaad (2010) suggest that Arab leaders need, first and foremost, to deploy both internal and external competencies to transform their relationships among their people. According to both Western and Arab perspectives, fithe ability to lead a teamfl is a fundamental quality that leaders should be equipped with. Scholars who studied leadership across the Arab region emphasized the fitimely decision- makingfl competency. Khakhar and Rammal (2013) found that time sensitivity is an important factor to successfully and effectively complete business negotiations. They contend that Arab leaders spend considerable time making decisions, as they invest in personal relationships and trust building prior to closing a deal. Polychromic cultures, which include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mexico, New Orleans (US), Philippines, Pakista n, India, and many African cultures, view time as fluid and tend to not see a distinct division between time and ta sks. As a result, timeliness and efficiency may be less important than other aspects of work (Hecht, DeVito and Guerrero, 1999). Cohen (1997) observes that "traditional societies have all the time in the world. The arbitrary divisions of the clock face have little saliency in cultures grou nded in the cycle of the seasons, the invariant pattern of rural life, community lif e, and the calendar of religious festivities" (p. 34). In contrast, Western cultures, which are per ceived as monochromic cultures, view time as a 122 tangible thing that can be mana ged, broken into smaller units, and arranged. According to Hecht and colleagues (1999), the monochromic percepti on of time grounded in the assumptions of the Industrial Revolution where "factory life required the labour force to be on hand and in place at an appointed hour" (p. 238). Monochromic cu ltures include Germany, Canada, Switzerland, United States, and Scandinavia. Even though the item fiability to think carefullyfl (rated 4.54) applies to leaders working in both worlds (Weste rn and Arab), it resonates well with managers working in polychromic societies, where indivi duals tend to take more time understanding the particulars of the project, the stakeholders involved, and avoid hasty decisions before closing a deal. The second most important set of qualities sugge sted by the experts were the fiability to meet targets or goalsfl and fiproblem solvi ng abilityfl (both scored 4.67). Both focus on performance, results, and the bottom line. Co mpetencies that focus on the activities or achievement oriented leadership styles are larg ely drawn from behavioral theories that support task oriented behaviors as related to leadership effectiveness (House & Mitchell, 1975). Other items that support high performance behaviors ar e fisuccess factors in business,fl fiunderstanding of balance sheetfl and fiappropriate knowledge.fl The latter is of a concern to the a Arabic/local context which was raised in the literature related to the need to increase leaders™ efficiency/performance in the Arab region public sector and lack of qualified nationals in leadership positions (World Economic Forum & OECD, 2012). The third (4.63) most important qualities according to the experts were fieffective management during periods of crisisfl and fiability to serve as a role model.fl Even though both qualities may be considered universal leadership competencies, being able to lead during periods of crisis is particularly salient to the Arab re gion, where political and economic landscapes are in 123 constant flux (Khakhar & Rammal, 2013). Thus, mana ging crises both internal and external to the business/organization calls for leaders who understand the political and regulatory environments impacting all aspects of local and international businesses (Ghauri, 2003). Furthermore, the notion of serving as a role model--or, colloquiall y, ‚walking the walk™--is central to authentic leadership theory, which explains how exceptional leaders achieve their goals. By first internalizing a strong ethical and moral structure, the leader can then externalize those ethical attributes, connect to followers in a clear and focused manner, and propel followers forward. Mameli (2013) contends that there are a number of potential au thentic leaders in the MENA region. A system of leadership development --one that cultivates both leader skills and leadership skills--is critical for preparing leader s to face the challenges associated with leading public sector entities in the Arab world (Mameli, 2013). In support of the trait theories, experts recommended the following critical traits for effective leadership: confidence, adaptability, pr esentation skills, patience, diligence, innovation, and creativity. These qualities ali gn with Collins™ (2006) level five leadership model, which emphasized personal humility (i.e., modesty, integr ity and patience) and professional will (desire to lead and influence other, drive and amb ition, communication skill, wisdom and leadership efficacy). These personality traits have been also part of fithe sunnah of Muhammad and other prophets for effective implementatio n of an Islamic organization stra tegyfl (AlSarhi et al., 2014). fiFlexibilityfl (score 4.33) is another trait of particular interest to the Arab region (in addition to other high context nations). Western m odels of leadership associate flexibility with situational leadership where lead ers, based on the context and relationship with followers, need to devise appropriate strategies specific to the prevailing situation (Daft, 1999; Guay, 2011). This contextualization approach to viewing objects and focusing on relationships results in different 124 ways of responding to events (Nisbett, 2003). Nisbett argues that the implications of a holistic approach to the world on individuals™ reasoning would infl uence the way people approach conflict resolution, debates, relationships with others, change, and verbal presentation skills. Individuals who perceive objects in relation to the environment are more likely to detect relationships among events, believe less in controll ability of the environment, see change rather than stability in events, emphasize long term rela tionships with others, and often equate silence (rather than speech) with knowledge (Nisbett, 2003) . Further, when confronted with a conflict, individuals may be fioriented to ward resolving the contradiction, transcending it, or finding a ‚middle way™- in short, to approach matters dialecticallyfl (Nisbett, 2003, p. 37). Under this context, fimeetings are often litt le more than a ratification of consensus achieved by the leader beforehand,fl (p. 194) and managers tend to deal with conflict by avoiding the situation, whereas Americans are more inclined towa rds persuasion and confrontation. Based on an empirical study conducted by Bealer and Bhanugopan (2014), UAE managers were more passive and avoidant than managers in the USA and Europe. It is very common among Arab leaders to reco gnize the role of situational constraints in affecting the outcome or behaviors of others (Beekun & Ba dawi, 1999). Arabs, who are from high context cultures, tend to attribute behaviors or events to si tuational factors, rather than attributing error or failure to abilities or personal traits. They are often holistic in assessi ng business relationships. Concepts related to giving evaluative feedback to employees and accountability may require the separation of the object from the content, ve rbal representations for guiding and growing performance, and mechanisms that allow criticis m and improvements to be integrated into the system without being perceived as a threat or challenging the loyalty of authority. Because confrontations are perceived as intrusive and dangerous, Arab nations (with an absence of 125 systematic controls and established criteria fo r performance managements and evaluations; Ali, 1992), may find it challenging to es tablish systems that addres s controlled and scrutinized performance in the workplace. Jreisat (2009b) observes that the Arab MENA leadership continues to struggle with successful implem entation of activities that promote audits, inspections, program evaluations, and the ongoing performance measurement and management systems. Arab employees often perceive performance management systems as discriminatory, unsupportive of accountability, transparency and e quality. Instead, the system rewards loyalty rather than high performance (Neal & Finlay, 2008). This concern is reflected in the Delphi experts™ responses, which suggest that Arab leaders ought to be equipped with fieffective use of performance measurement and reward,fl fiability to find areas for improvement,fl fiability to see potential in others,fl fiability to implications of mistakes,fl and the ability to fisegment people -- those who get upset with punishment and thos e who need different kind of punishment.fl The use of reward in a fair and consistent manner has been highlight ed by transactional theories of leadership. Mirroring principles of transactional leadership, Delphi experts also recommended that participants in leadersh ip development programs learn about building fiinterpersonal skills,fl fieffective management of people,fl the fiability to gi ve instructions,fl and the fiability to supervise others.fl However, Bittel (1984) argued that employees need more than a tangible reward and a clear understanding of resp onsibilities to be motivated. The Arab region may benefit from servant approaches of leadership, where al truistic leaders empower and grow followers™ abilities to lead in a selfless manner (Mameli, 2013). Sarayrah (2004) observed that servant leadership is an approach once employed in Bedouin-Arab culture. This may explain some of the items nominated by the Delphi expe rts, such as fiknowledge of people with whom one works,fl fiability to gain trust of employees,fl fidemocratic decision-making processes,fl 126 fiability to take the organization to where it s hould be,fl fiability to lead without imposing,fl and fiability to be accepted as a leader by those he or she leads.fl Leadership influenced by Islamic and tribal traditions represents a psychological contract between a leader and followers. The leadership is a trust ( amaanah) and a leader™s responsibility is to guide, protect and treat followers justly while remaining grounded in th e values of consultative leadership practice (Beekun & Badawi, 1999; Ahmad & Ogunsola, 2011). As such, leadership is perceived as practicing Allah™s wisdom but is not im posed in a forceful manner (Ali, 1993). Another set of items (e.g., charisma, ability to motivate and engage employees, ability to inspire others, and a vision for the organization) fall under the transformational leadership theory, where leaders share and shape a vision that provides direction, focus, inspiration and motivation to others (Blunt, 1991). Transfor mational leaders mobilize their teams through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, high -performance expectations and articulation of a vision (Bass, 1997). Transformational/charisma tic leadership, which is more pronounced in Islamic management (AlSarhi et al., 2014) compli cates leadership development, asking whether charisma is innate or learned. In other words, if experts believe that charisma (score of 4.33) is a key Arab leadership quality for followers to be engaged and energized, can individuals with no or little charisma become transformational leaders? In the Arab region, particularly across the Gulf nations, a large number of expatriate managers and national employees work side by side (Markaz, 2012). With a need to effectively lead in a multicultural environment, the Delphi experts recommended that Arab leaders learn about cross-cultural management by identifying the competency: fiability to work effectively within a multicultural environmentfl and the need to have fia culturally inclusive mission statement.fl This mirrors Western practices promo ting the understanding of employees™ attitudes, 127 beliefs, behaviors, and effectiveness that cha nge across cultures and call for differences in management practices (Newman & Nollen, 1996; D uyar, Aydin & Pehlivan, 2010). According to Dubrin and Dalglish (2003), fia multicultural leader is a leader with the sk ills and attitudes to relate effectively to, and motivate people across race, ethnicity, social attitudes, and lifestyles . . . the leader must be aware of overt an d subtle cultural differencesfl (p. 406). Leaders, when working in a multicultural environment, often face the challenge of establishing a shared understanding through effective communication across high and low context cultures (Hall, 1976). The Delphi experts note this important skill by identifying such leadership qualities as fiability to use humor appropriately,fl fiabi lity to choose and use the right words,fl and filistening skills.fl Items flagged as Arabic/local are linked to leadership qualities that include fia good-natured (similar to a good attit ude),fl ficompassion,fl fiability to tr eat people as human beings,fl and fidisposition to act in an educated manner.fl This role seems congruent with transcendental forms of leadership, where lead ers cut across self-interest (i.e., transcend) and ground their actions in values, altruistic love, hope/faith, attitudes to meet the intrinsic and extrinsic needs of their followers, resulting in a positive organizational outcome (Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005). Transcendental leadership subsumes the four fundamental nature of individual survival: the body, mind, heart, and spirit. Transactional a nd transformational lead ership, however, only emphasizes the first three (physical, logic and feelings) (Fry, 2003). Human feelings (emotional engagement with followers and A llah) are at the center of leadership in Islam, as leaders™ performances rest on both social and spirit ual actions (AlSarhi et al., 2014; Kader, 1973). Lastly, the fiwillingness to be mana gedfl Delphi item was also fla gged as locally specific, as it may relate to the challenge of nepotism commo n to Arab institutions. Ali (1992) describes 128 authority relations in the Arab world as a sheikocracy, which is characterized as hierarchical authority, rules and regulations contingent on the personality a nd power of the individuals who make them, an ‚open-door™ polic y, subordination of efficiency to human relations and personal connections, indecisiveness, informality am ong lower- level managers, and a generally patriarchal approach. Nepotism is often evident in the selection of upper-level managers, but qualifications are emphasized in the selection of middle- and lo wer-level personnel. Chain of command . . . and division of labor are also characteristics of the sheikocracy . They are not as strictly observed as in the West. (p. 7) The nexus of power and authority relations between leader and follower become multifactorial rather than dyadic and linear (Neal & Finlay, 2008). In this context, leaders function in open-systems, where external factors such as family or personal connections and authority can take precedence over procedures and actions within the organization (Ali & Wahabi, 1995) and may create c onflict within the business. Figure 16: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Motivational Enablers Motivation enablers. Figure 16 shows selected items that reflect Western (in grey) and Arabic (in red) practices. The full list of items is in included in Appendix A. Adults™ experiences act as motivational enablers for engaging in lear ning. This section summarizes what the Delphi 129 experts view as the incentives that drive expe rts to participate in leadership development programs. The experts' top-rated motivation enable r was fiopportunity to realignfl (score of 4.46) and second top rate fiopportunity to rechargefl (score of 4.42). This may be particularly relevant to the Arab region, which is undergoing major ch anges in both socioeconomic and political arenas. Public and private sector executives, to cope with the growth spurred by oil and respond to the challenges facing the Arab world (politi cal instability, competitio n/ monopolization, scarce workforce with appropriate talent, etc.), need to find ways to regularly align, recharge, and reflect on their practices to m ove their institutions forward and upwards. Continuously aligning executives' skills with the demands of the shifting landscape and globalization is critical for leaders' effectiveness, versatility, and agility. Other items nominated by the experts fall in to Houle's (1961) thr ee categories: (a) goal-oriented, (b) activity-oriented l earners, and (c) learning-oriented learners. The goal-oriented items mainly emphasize goals re lated to professional development or job competencies (e.g., "needs of one's work situation," "progressi on in one™s career," "requirement of the organization"). More than 30% of the items proposed by the Delphi experts fall into this category and link motivation enablers to the workplace or corporation in which executives work (e.g., "presence of a supportive work environment," "roles in leadership," and "extent to which training will contribute to organization"). This high emph asis on the role of the institution/workplace in motivating learners to participate in training is worth noting. Other items fell into the lear ning-oriented classification. Experts suggested that some executives would be keen to enroll in leadership programs because of their "internal need to grow," "a passion for excellence," "love of what one does," or "need to update or learn new skills 130 or competencies" (in agreement with the Oman i sample examined by Al-Barwani and Kelly, 1985). The third group of learners who are incentivized by community or social interactions have been emphasized by the experts, who rated "opportunity to network" as high as 4.42 and "extent to which participants know each other" as low as 2.96. Even though the idea of interconnectedness and networking has been exam ined in Western contexts (Isaac, Guy & Valentine, 2001), homogeneity of classroom participants has been flagged as specific to Arabic contexts. Arab executives may be more prone to participate if individuals with same background, level and experience join the training. Four items were specific to the nature of curriculum and content of the leadership program (ficlarity of objectives,fl fip racticality of the cont ent offered,fl fithe nature of the training program syllabus,fl fiextent to wh ich training is tailored to needs of participantsfl). This means experts recommend that training providers and business schools ought to package and design courses in ways that suit the needs of participating executives, cl arifying instructional objectives with practical relevance to the workplace and clearly outlined in the syllabus. Items related to quality and reputation are more apparent in Arabic literature and have been flagged as local. Experts rated fiquality of training provider/brandfl at 4.25 and fireputation of the training programfl at 4.08. Ali and Camp ( 1995) argue that fieven among the best existing colleges of management and economics [in the Arab region], there are some which have unacceptable qualitiesfl (p. 11). Similarly, Atiyyah (1993) indicates that the effectiveness of executive education programs is generally low du e to inadequate needs™ assessment, irrelevant curricula, non-engaging training techniques and lack of reinforcement of theory in the workplace. Thus, as time is valuable to executiv es, it is vital that leadership programs are 131 delivered by reputable and quality providers to maximize the retu rn on investment from training interventions. Items fiparticipant™s understanding of role in his or her companyfl (rated 4.33) and fidesire to go beyond just following ordersfl (rated 4.38) are of interest to the Arab context, as they relate to issues of government inefficiency (Levant) and the enforcement of nationalization policies (Gulf). Mameli (2013) points out that fipublic sector performance suffers, and public administrators are challenged to achieve stable footing to carry out their jobsfl (p. 384). Additionally, the nationalization efforts to replace expats with nationals often lead to a mismatch between human competencies and organizatio nal needs (Al-Yahya, 2007). The lack of an adequately qualified local workforce (World Economic Forum & OECD, 2012) may increase the number of nationals in the workplace but wi ll not resolve the problem of institutional inefficiency and the culture of underperforman ce. Governments need employees eager to be equipped with the right skills to fulfill the job requirements a nd who are motivated to do more than what the job requires (i.e., employees must demonstrate knowledge and engagement). Engagement in one™s work fitranslates directly into discretionary effortŠthe willingness to do more than only meet job requirements and customer needsfl (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2013, p. 5). It has been argued that, in contrast to employee engagement, j ob satisfaction is often linked to fia pleasurable or positive emotional state result ing from the appraisal of one™s jobfl (Locke, 1976, p. 1304) resulting from meeti ng the hygiene factors of a job (e.g. status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, work conditions, good pa y, paid insurance, or vacations; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Unlike satisfied employees, en gaged individuals are not only motivated by extrinsic factors but also are intrinsically fi most committed to their organizations put in 57 percent more effort on the job Š and are 87 percen t less likely to resign Š than employees who 132 consider themselves disengagedfl (The Role of Employee Engagement, 2010). As such, governments in the Arab region need to address not only the hygiene factors but also motivators (e.g., recognition, achievement, or personal growth ) arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself to promote employees™ engagement, pe rformance and desire for lifelong learning. Figure 17: Delphi Experts' Selected It em Means for Barriers to Participation Barriers to participation. Figure 17 shows selected items that reflect Western (in grey) and Arabic (in red) practices. The full list of ite ms is in included in Appendix A. Similar to Merriam and colleagues (2007), the Delphi expe rts also found that executives find timing and cost as the top barriers for leadership developm ent participation. Items fitiming of the programfl was rated highest (4.58), followed by fione™s work schedulefl (4.42) and fithe time required to go abroadfl (3.46). These items mirror the challenge s faced by Arab executives who work in the public sector. Government managers, particularly, work from 8:00 am until 2:00 pm and typically participate in traini ng during work days. As such, if the training does not fit the weekdays™ schedule, it is usually difficult fo r employees to enroll in the professional development course. Further, due to the low quality training providers in the region, many 133 consider traveling abroad to atte nd courses (thus this item was fla gged as Arabic/local specific). The impracticality of traveling may pose a barrier to participation. Items such as fiavailability of budget,fl fipay ment of training course by your employer (company),fl ficost of the training program,fl a nd fiunwillingness of organizations to pay for expensesfl reflect the prominence of cost as a ba rrier, similar to what Johnstone and Rivera (1965) cited in their study. Similar to Ali (1992), experts nominated fif amily commitmentfl and ficultural hurdlesfl as crucial to executives who need to fiestablish equi librium in one's individual and social lifefl and who feel that fifamily and work are the centre of lifefl (p. 14). Despite the fact that marriage, housework and family commitments are also common in the West (Hagedorn, 1993, Devault, 1997; Pleck and Rustad, 1980; Allen and Walker, 2000), based on the literature, females in the Arab world face an accentuated pressure/burden to comply with social and family expectations. Reputation and the importance of quality trai ning across the Arab region is highlighted through such items as filack of stature or reputa tion of persons doing the trainingfl (score of 3.96) and fipoor reputation of the companies who conduc t the training,fl as well as considering fiin-house training provided by trainers in companiesfl and ficheap lo cations for the trainingfl not acceptable or up to par. Those items have been flagged as Arabic/local. Experts also organized, like Johnstone and Rivera (1965), potential barriers to participation into two groups: internal, or dispositio nal barriers, and external , or situational ones. Internal barriers included fiparticipants, fear of losing face if they show failure in the training,fl filack of confidence,fl and fiperception that particip ants will have to step out of their comfort zones.fl Items such as fithe corporate culture,fl filack of belief by the organization in human capital,fl filack of permission from one™s bosses,fl fistress from work,fl and fineed to cope with 134 demands of workfl fall into the situ ational barriers classification. It should be noted that 11 items out of the total 37 barriers are related to the corporation/institution. Two items that may be linked to the Arabic context are fistability of organizationfl and fiunwillingness of companies to engage employees as partners like in the Western world.fl The former may be a response to the high instability of businesses in the MENA region due to the rapid changes and political turmoil institutions undergoes. The latter is a belief that employees may feel unmotivated to seek professional development if they do not see a lo ng term and clear career path (e.g., becoming partners/or owning shares from the company reve nues) typical of corporate Western practices. Items suggested by the experts and not prevalen t in Western literatu re include filanguage of instruction is not one™s first languagefl (similar to Wilkins™ 2001 finding), fitoo much content used in the trainingfl (echoing Mohsenin™s 2010 observation), firequired to attend all sessions for the training,fl fiuse of exams for qualification,fl fineed to complete assigned work before training,fl and fia lot of reading required for the training.fl Based on those items, training providers are advised to design leadership programs that minimize the use of readings, content, and assignments, reduce the use of assessments/formal exams, have flexible attendance criteria and are conducted in Arabic language. Figure 18: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Learning Environment 135 Learning environment. The top rated item recommended by the Delphi experts is the need to deliver the training in a fibig, well-eq uipped place like university or hotels with easy access to more information and facilitiesfl (sco re 4.46). Physical sp aces with access to information (e.g., library, web-based resources, off-site learning, multi-purpose facilities) have been suggested by Dugdale (2009). To immerse Ar ab executives in the learning experience, the experts proposed that the training is conducted fioutside the normal work environmentfl (4.33) and in fifacilities available to relaxfl (3.71). In rega rds to aspects specific to the course kit, experts value the importance of choosing an fiattractive title fo r the training programfl (4.08) and using fiattractive and colorful hard copy materialsfl (3.79) with fiminimal hard copy materialsfl (3.08). Figure 19: Delphi Experts' Selected Item Means for Instructor Characteristics Instructor™s characteristics. In agreement with Tootoonc hi and colleagues™ (2002) findings, the Delphi experts believe that the instructor™s ability to incorporate practical business lessons and real world scenarios is the most sali ent quality for effective management programs. Experts™ top rated instructor™s qua lity is fiexperience as a business leader,fl with a score of 4.54. The Delphi experts also believe that for Arab executives, it is im portant that the fiinstructor is famous as a business leaderfl (4.42) as we ll as inviting and fimee ting well-known business leadersfl during leadership development interventions. 136 To promote the credibility of the instructor and bring in new/fresh multiple perspectives, the experts emphasize the importance of the fititle of the instructorfl and having an instructor who is an fioutside expert, rather than someone fr om the same organization.fl Those two items have been flagged as Arabic/local. In support of Fenwick (2001), experts stress the role of an educator as a facilitator able to engage executives in learning, rather than just lecturing or regurgitating the content. This belief is reflected in both items fiinstructo r is able to explain the meaning of the content, not just present itfl (4.50) and fiinstructor is a good facilitato r and works well with the audiencefl (4.33). Experts also demonstrated a preference fo r instructors who were digitally savvy and skilled in technology integration. Consistent with Tootoonchi and colleagues (2002), experts contend that having an fiinstructor [who] uses latest technology, like e-lecturesfl should be modeled in leadership trainings. Comparing Experts™ to Executives™ Views of Leadership Development What are the similarities and differences be tween experts™ and Arab learners™ views of best leadership development practices? To answ er question two of the study, I analyzed the 50 items matching between the Delphi and LSS findings using the Mann-Whitney U statistical test. This process identified agreements and differe nces between experts and executives™ views. In figure 21 below, the two lines correspond with either the experts™ or executives™ mean ranking of the items, respectively, and highlights with an asterisk the items found to have statistically significant differences. The graph also shows how the items have been categorized according to the study constructs. In Appendix D, the tables provide the executives (LSS) and experts™ (Delphi) means (from high to low) for each ite m and their corresponding Mann-Whitney U test statistic. 137 Figure 20: Mean Rankings of Experts vs. Executives Executives and experts generally agreed on all constructs related to LA, ME, and IC. However, experts and executives disagreed on few items that relate to LC, BP, LE and HO categories. Executives put less emphasis on the n eed to develop problem-solving and analytical skills of leaders (LC), reinforced value on hurdles for females and the role of the institution/cooperation as a barrier to participation (BP), stressed on the need for comfort in the physical environment (LE), and underscored the importance of culturally responsive practices (HO). Findings are vital to designers of leadership development programs who aim to consider both sides (teacher and learners) and integrate executives™ feedback/input into the curriculum, as recommended by Coloma and colleagues (2012). For each construct, items that appeared at the top of the list for both experts and executives of factors will be discussed to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement between the two groups. Areas of agreement. Experts generally agreed on items that fall under the LA, ME, and IC categories. 138 Learning activities. Both experts and executives believe that experiential learning approaches are conducive to effective leadership development (e.g., case studies, role play, and collaborative problem solving activities). A pa rticular emphasis was pl aced on the social and verbal aspects of instructional methods. Experts and executives rated interacting with instructors and participants highly. The item fimore opportunities for talk, a nd less reading materialfl also reinforces Ali™s (1996) contention that figroup interactions and team activities, if designed appropriately, could result in the optimal facilitation of intended changesfl (p. 9). Motivation enablers. Executives gave high ratings to all items proposed by the experts related to motivational enablers. These items addressed the three types of learning orientations: goal/work related (e.g., extent to which training will contribute to participant s company), activity/social (e.g., opportunity to network), and knowledge related (e.g., need to update or learn new skills or competencies). Two of the highest ranked items relate to the need for leaders to see the big picture (fidesire to broaden horizon and see the big picturefl) and keep pace with contemporary developments (fiopportunity to re align [refresh thinking with timely best practices]fl). Instructor™s characteristics. The executives' ratings indicate high levels of agreement with experts on factors related to ideal/preferred instructor™s qualities. Those items mainly emphasize facilitation skills and ability to engage learners (fiinstructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples,fl and fiinstructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audiencefl). Further, experts and executives agreed on the need to incorporate authentic experiences into the classroom through the instructor™s status and background (fiinstructor has experience as a business leaderfl and fiinstructor is famous as a 139 business leaderfl). This is congruent with Branine and Pollard™s (2010) recommendation to consider the power associated with older age/ status/experts in the development of talent. Areas of disagreement. Experts and executives disagreed on a few items that relate to LC, BP, LE and HO categories. Leadership competencies. The executives gave high ratings to several items proposed by the experts. Those include the need to develop abilities to lead a team and the importance of personal traits as well as job related skills. However, executives ranked less positively than experts items such as fiproblem solving ability,fl fieffective manage ment during periods of crisis,fl and fieffective analysis of work situations.fl The significant differences between experts and executives show that experts view analytical skills, problem solving, and responding to change/crisis as more important competencies to leadership development than executives. Another statistically significant difference in ratings between experts and executives was produced by the item fiability to serve as a role model,fl indicating that experts placed greater emphasis on learning about ethical leadership approaches in training interventions. Barriers to participation. Both experts and executives emph asized that the fitiming of the programfl and fitoo much content used in the trainingfl were barriers to participation. Nevertheless, significant differences between experts and executives have been found on four items: fipoor reputation of the companies who co nduct the training,fl fithe corporate culture,fl fiperception about training,fl and ficultural hurdles for females.fl Executives placed higher importance on those barriers than experts. Learning environment. Experts and executives agreed on the learning environment constructs (e.g., fioutside the normal work envi ronmentfl and filarge and well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotelfl). However, executives 140 viewed fifacilities available to re laxfl as a more important element than experts when it comes to designing physical spaces conducive to learning. Homogeneity related items. Experts and executives did not agree on the influence of culture on leadership development programs. Th e data revealed that the largest and most common disagreement regarded culture-related issu es (e.g., fiinstruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture,fl fiinstructor is Arab,fl fiinstructor fr om a different Arab country,fl and fiinstructor is from the same country,fl with p-values of < .01). In general, experts tended to see culture as having less influence on effective leadership development than executives. The underlying reason for this difference is unclear. When surveyed, experts' responses were not anonymous, whereas executives' responses were. In this context, experts may have been more likely than executives to respond properly or diplomatically about the role of culture. Executives™ Background and Learning Preferences The last three questions examine the relati onship between learning preferences of Arab executives and their background (i.e., national culture, geographical region, demographics, and homogeneity). In this section, I used an HLM model to explain how nation level -- or level two -- variables (region and national values) and individual characteristi cs -- or level one -- variables (gender, age, sector, educational background) relate to executives™ approaches to various aspects of leadership development (leadership activities, leadership competencies, instructors™ qualities, learning environment, motivation enablers and perceived barriers). The methods related to the process of accounting for the clustering in the HLM model, the determination of the reduction of unexplained variance due to the independent variable, and specification of the reference group are included in Appendix J. 141 Learning preferences and geographical regions. How do geographic regional differences relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development programs? To address the third question, I will focus on the independent variable region (Gulf = 0, 1 = Asia = 1) within the level- two HLM model and how it relates to each outcome variable (six learning preferences/constru cts). The results for the model are illustrated in Table 13. It is important to note this is the full mode l that includes both level-one (individual) and level-two (country) variables in the HL M. Therefore, I am controlling for the other independent variables while looking at the relationship between region and each dependent variable. Table 13: Effects of Region on Learning Preferences REGION, 01 Dependent Variable Coeffici ent Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .19** 0.294 (0.069) Leadership Competencies .23** 0.376 (0.096) Motivational Enablers .16* 0.223 (0.083) Barriers to Participation .15* 0.228 (0.068) Learning Environment .15* 0.238 (0.073) Instructor's Characteristics .198** 0.297 (0.067) * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 The table contains two important parameters: the coefficient ( ), which indicates how learning preferences in each nation change with regard to measured participant characteristic (conditional on all remaining indepe ndent variables), and the effect sizes, which are a measure of the magnitude of the (conditional) relationshi p between the independent variable and the 142 dependent variable. The coefficients used in our model are also called fixed effects. The final estimation of fixed effects did not use robust st andard errors because the dataset has a small number of level two units, thus not meeting the criterion for the usage of robust errors (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Based on the results, all constructs show a statistically significant difference between the Levant and Gulf regions. For example, learning ac tivities scale is statistically significant with region as a predictor. Those in Levant tend to rate learning activities 0.19 points higher than those in the Gulf ( 01 = 0.19; p-value < .01), when holding PDI and UAI scores constant. The effect size of the independent variable region that relates to LA is 0.29. Cohen™s general rule for the effect size states that the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is small if the effect size ranges between 0.2 to 0.3, medium if it is around 0.5, and large if it is greater than 0.8. Even though the effect size is considered small, this effect size of 0.29 is the change of LA in standard units between Gulf and Levant, conditional on the remaining independent variables. For further exploration in the regional differences, I performed a Mann-Whitney U test for each of the items within the constructs to determine if there are regional differences in median responses of the individual items. Figur e 22 shows the item mean differences from high to low across all items, grouped by constructs. In Appendix E, tables show the item means for each region and then the region difference, which is marked with an asterisk if that item was statistically significant according to the Mann-Whitney U test. The results of this statistical test identify the items that the two groups are different, w ithout controlling for nesting or other variables. As such, the outcome of the Mann-Whitney U test should be used with caution. The 143 findings should only be sugge stive or descriptive and should only be indicative of what may be important to attend to by leadership development designers. Figure 21: Item Mean Difference by Re gion (Item Grouped by Construct) The variance between executives™ preference s across both regions indicates that the executives from the Levant generally have a higher agreement level with the Delphi experts than executives from the Gulf region, when other independent variables are held constant. For example, with the learning activities scale, executi ves from the Gulf agreed less with the use of ficase studiesfl (mean difference = 0.31; p-valu e < .01), which reflects a more Western (experiential) approach to learning. This confir ms to an extent Gillespie and Riddle™s (2005) contention that case-based teaching methods may pose a challenge to Arab learners, who are accustomed to rote learning and often lack the sy nthesis skills required to analyze case studies. Executives from the Gulf scored lower on the ne ed for fidemocratic decision-making processesfl (mean difference = 0.28; p-value < .01) as part of the curriculum being taught in leadership development programs. 144 In regards to the motivation enabler construct, executives from the Levant agreed more positively with drivers such as fiopportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices)fl (mean difference = 0.3; p-value < .01) and fidesire to broaden horizon and see the big picturefl (mean difference = 0.23; p-value < .01). Executives from both regions agreed on the importance of practicality of the course, scoring highly the firelevance and quality of the program syllabusfl and fiextent to which training will contri bute to participants™ company,fl with a mean difference of 0.04 for both. Executives from the Levant agreed more pos itively with Johnstone and Rivera™ (1965) external or situational barriers scoring higher on fitiming of the pr ogram,fl filevel of difficulty of the training (either above or below your level),fl and fithe corporate culturefl than their counterparts in the Gulf. Executives from the Gu lf agreed with Levant executives on several instructors™ qualities (i.e., fiinstructor is famous as a business leaderfl) and agreed less positively on whether the instructor needs to come from a fiwell known universityfl (mean difference = 0.25; p-value < .01). In regards to the learning environment, Le vant executives emphasized, contrary to their Gulf counterparts, the need to have fimateria ls accessible on the Web (virtual learning environment)fl (mean diff erence = 0.30; p-value < .01) and fifacilities with access to wireless network and libraryfl (mean difference = 0.22; p-value < .01). This variance may show that leaders from the Levant value the integr ation of digital tools in the classroom as recommended by the Delphi experts. Across all constructs, the only item Gulf executives scored higher than Levant executives was filanguage of the program (Native La nguage).fl In general, executives agree on the majority of the homogene ity items, including fiinstr uction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture,fl fipartic ipants are from the same gender as me,fl and fiinstructor is Arab.fl 145 The variance between executives™ learni ng preferences may reflect the regional variability that exists between their socioeconomic and political backgrounds. The political systems (majority ruled by monarchies) and ec onomic-technological de velopment (majority recently open to modernization to the discovery of oil) may relate to why Gulf executives score lower on the democratic decision making processe s and digital requirements in leadership programs. Ali (1993) found that his Saudi Arabia n (Gulf) research participants were more inclined to adopt a fipseudo-participatoryfl environment among managers and subordinates where the Arab manager uses consultation and media tion to resolve conflic ts. Nevertheless, the decision-making power rests entirely with the Ar ab leader, but it is not overtly imposed in a forceful manner. Conversely, executives in the Levant countries -- a region which possess a higher levels of democratization, modernization and religious diversity (Ralston et al., 2012) -- were more inclined to prefer experiential learning approach es, thus scoring higher on the learning activities construct. However, executives from both regions agreed on the level of cultural affinity in leadership development interventions, seeking congruence in instructional language, gender of participants, and nationality of instructor as well as the localization of content. Learning preferences and national cultures. How do cultural dimensions relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development programs? To answer this question, I will continue to use the level-two results, specifically looking at the results for PDI and UAI (please refer to Table 14). 146 Table 14: Effects of Hofstede's Nati onal Values on Learning Preferences PDI, 02 UAI, 03 Dependent Variable Coefficient Effect Size (Error) Coefficient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities -.004* 0.22 (0.07) -.008 Leadership Competencies -.006* 0.29 (0.09) -.01* 0.23 (0.095) Motivational Enablers -.007** 0.31 (0.08) -.011* 0.22 (0.08) Barriers to Participation -.004** 0.21 (0.07) -.015* 0.32 (0.07) Learning Environment -.003 -.01* 0.22 (0.07) Instructor's Characteristics -.004* 0.197 (0.07) -.01* 0.21 (0.069) * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 National cultures. Figures 22 and 23 show, from high to low, PDI and UAI scores for each nationality. In general, the da ta showed that the Gulf countri es had a higher PDI score than the Levant countries. The high PDI value in the Gulf area is typically associated with unequal distribution of wealth, low cooperation of citi zens with government responsibilities/higher dependence on the public sector, lower freedom of speech/flow of institutional information, weaker labor unions, and autocratic regimes. Regarding UAI, ther e were high and low values for both regions. UAI is associated with the way nations deal with uncertainties. Levant countries fall higher on the UAI spectrum, as they have be en destabilized by geopolitical uncertainty and volatility (e.g., economic crises and military conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan). Such instability 147 leads to higher anxiety levels (Hofstede, 2001). This section discusses the implications of the nation value indices (high versus low), differe nces in social norms and work organization practices based on the empirical studies that Hofstede (2001) and other researchers (e.g., Strobe, 1976; Spencer-Oatey, 1997) conducted. Hofstede™s fr amework will be later used to relate the national values to the findings (learning preferences of executives) of this study. PDI. According to Hofstede (2001), the power distance dimension is fithe extent to which the less powerful of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequallyfl (p. 98). The basic issue involved in measuring the power distance relates to how nations handle human inequality. Inequality can exist in areas such as prestige, wealth, and power, and it is usually formali zed in employer-employee relationships. High PDI countries usually have national elites who hold relatively authoritarian values. These values usually reflect across social norms. In this context, employees and students place high value on conformity and see the world as an unjust place led by older people. Older people are respected and feared. As hierarchy equates to existential inequality, superiors consider employees as being different from themselves and vice versa. Relations hips rest on coercive and referent power, and people tend to blame the weak (Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, in nations with low PDI, authority is based on secular-rational arguments. Employees and students value independence and free dom. Inequality in society is minimized as all should have equal rights. Society stresses reward, legitimacy and expert power. As such, subordinates and superiors are both equal and judged according to their roles and performance. People tend to blame the system, and older people are neither respected nor feared (Hofstede, 2001). 148 In work organization, high PDI countries tend to centralize decision structures, instill tall organization pyramids and possess a large body of supervisory personnel. The ideal boss is a fiwell-meaning autocrat or good fa therfl (Hofstede, 2001, p. 107) who relies on formal rules using authoritative leadership styles. Leader-followe r relations are usually polarized and often emotional. In any case of power abuse by superior , it is expected that no defense will be taken against the supervisor. Leadership is associated with popularity, st atus symbols, and privileges. Subordinates are told what to do and creativity needs top-down support. Information is withheld by managers; job descriptions are ambiguous and overloaded; and white-collar jobs are valued more than blue-collar jobs. On the other end, low PDI countries tend to have a strong preference for reducing the concentration of authority by decentralizi ng decision structures and flattening their organizational pyramids. Hierarchy means an in equality of roles, and the ideal boss is a firesourceful democrat who sees him or herself as practical, orderlyfl and relying on personal experience and on subordinates who are consulted during the decision making process (Hofstede, 2001, p. 107). The leader-follower relationship is pragmatic. Abuse is reported and defended by institutional norms. Information flows openly, innovation is adopted by champions with or without supervisory roles, and salary ranges are narrowed between subordinates and managers. Actually, privileges and status symbols are frowned upon. UAI. The second dimension of national culture examined in this study is uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty about the future is part of human life, and organizations that Arab leaders need to cope through the political turmoil, technological advancement and increasing demands of the globalized market. Hofstede (2001) defines UAI as fithe extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situationsfl (p. 161). Nations differ in their 149 societal norms in response to avoiding ambigu ity and unpredictability. Societies with high UAI tend to have a higher inner urge to be busy and stressed. Individuals in such societies are inclined to consider what is different as dangerous, take only known risks, and feel powerlessness toward external forces. At the organizational level, in high UAI societies, the power of leaders depends on control of uncertainties and innovation tends to be constrained by rules and processes are highly formalized. At the individual level, a high country UAI index manifests itself with a reduced ambitions for advancement, a preference for a specialist role rath er than a leadership position, a higher approval to conformity/l oyalty, a tendency to avoid competition and authoritative management, a dislike of working for a foreigner, resistance to change, a pessimistic outlook for employing institution/busine ss. Instead, a preference for tasks with sure outcomes, long term employment and following instructions are valued (Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, in low UAI societies, innovators are free from rules; power of superiors depends on position and relationships; and the duration of employment is short to average. Individuals feel comfortable undertaking tasks w ith uncertain outcomes, calculate risks, and leverage problem solving to achieve. In businesse s, transformational leadership, generalists, and common sense are valued. Leaders are involved in strategizing, have a strong sense of achievement, and empower their subordinates (Hofstede, 2001). PDI and UAI have implications on other areas of citizens™ lives, such as the political system, family, psychological char acteristics, legislation, and philosophical systems (religion and political ideologies). Hofstede (2001) contends that while those indices have proven to be remarkably stable over the past decades, they do fl uctuate over time. He al so notes that cultural dimension scores from one country are always relative to scores for other countries in the same study. One score (which always represents the mean scores of a nation rather than an 150 individual™s) cannot be interprete d by itself because it only has relative, not intrinsic, meaning. The differences between nations, though, are robust and fiare not expected to disappear in the foreseeable futurefl (p. 145). In this section, I will not delve into how each Arab country differs across the high and low continuum. Instead, I w ill focus on eliciting the different learning approaches that associate with the variability in those national dimensions. Figure 22: PDI Values of Nations 151 Figure 23: UAI Values of Nations Effect of PDI and UAI on learning preferences. Results for both PDI and UAI were statistically significant across five of the six dependent variables, as illustrated in Table 14. For both PDI and UAI, the relationships are negative for those that we re statistically significant; therefore, for example, if a country™s PDI score in creases by one point, then the learning activities score decreases by about 0.004 points ( 02 = -0.004; p-value < .05) when holding region and UAI scores constant. Similarly, if a count ry™s UAI score increases by one point, then the leadership competencies score decreases by about 0.01 points ( 03 = -0.01; p-value < .05) when holding region and PDI scores constant. Below is a graphical representati on of the relationships between PDI versus LA as well as UAI versus LC. 152 Figure 24: HLM Graph of PDI vs LA Figure 25: HLM Graph of UAI vs LC 153 Based on the HLM results, the higher the PDI, the lower the score on all the constructs. When PDI increases, and while holding other independent variables constant, executives™ levels of agreement with the Delphi experts on the importance of aspects related to leadership development decrease. The LA™s effect size for PDI is 0.217. The effect size is considered small and indicates the change of the dependent variable (constructs) in standard deviation units for a one standard deviation change in the independent variable (national index), conditional on the remaining independent variables. For example, regarding learning activities (LA), executives from countries with high PDI te nd to be less inclined to adopt experiential approaches of learning. Experiential learning practices (e.g., simulation, role play, case study), which requires learner-centered approaches where students are se lf-directed and share equal responsibility for learning with the instructor, logically call fo r individuals from nations with lower PDI. Contrarily, in teacher-centered education (traditional typical of didactic approaches implemented in many Arab schools), teachers, seen as the sole source of expertise, transfer wisdom to students who take on a more passive roles. In a teacher-c entered system, the quality of learning rests on the excellence and pedigree of teachers who are c onsidered responsible for the learning process and are expected to initiate the majority of communication in the cl assroom. This may be particularly relevant for executive level education, where Arab executives tend to prefer smaller classrooms to increase homogeneity of partic ipants (same management status levels) to fidecrease the discussion-inhibiting effects of power distance and hierarchyfl (Gillespie & Riddle, 2005, p. 145). The tendency to collaborate with pre-defined group membership may pose a challenge to collectivist (Arab) societies with a high PDI. Collectivist societies lack this spontaneous sociability. Gillespie and Riddle (2 005) argue that when societies lack what Fukuyama (1995) identifies as spontaneous sociability--a process in which persons with no prior 154 relationship come together to get a job done -- individuals may find it challenging to trust outsiders in a global and open economy. Comparably, UAI has a statisti cally significant negative relationship with all constructs (except LA). This means that, holding other i ndependent variables constant, executives from countries with high UAI tended to agree less with the items nominated by the Delphi experts across the majority of constructs . For example, regarding leadership competencies (LC), with a small effect size of 0.229, executives from countries with high UAI were less inclined to value the leadership qualities nominated by the Delphi experts, as those items reflect a leadership, which necessitates crisis management, focuses on navigating situations th at require critical and problem solving skills, and embraces a higher le vel of ambiguity (i.e., cognitive dissonance; Festinger, 1957). Shane, Venkataram, and Macmillan (1995) found that a low UAI corresponds to several championing roles within organizations . One of which is the transformational leader, who empowers subordinates, persuades followers of the institution to provide support for innovation, and instills a culture of high achieve ment by institutionalizing a robust performance management system and spreading the contag ious drive to take on calculated risks (Liao & Chuang, 2007; Nemanich & Keller, 2007) . In another study, Bealer and Bhanugopan (2013) found that managers in the UAE (a society with a considerably higher UAI than other Arab countries) are filess transformational and more pa ssive avoidant than managers in the USAfl (which exhibits a lower UAI) (p. 309). It seems that the higher the UAI index, the more Arab executives, to reduce uncertainties, may be inclined to both avoid confrontations/ accountability related issues and use wasta to reward loyalty and kinship (Branine & Pollard, 2010). Based on the leadership competencies that the Delphi expe rts have nominated, several qualities in the LC scale mirror characteristics (e.g., charisma, ability to build and lead teams, ab ility to meet targets 155 and goals) drawn from transformational leader ship theories. Consequently, the negative relationship of UAI with LC ma y explain the lower preference of Arab executives from nations with high UAI to score lower on leadership qualities in the LSS survey. Recognizing the differences in learning preferences related to low and high values of UAI and PDI and understanding the national values that underpin those differences may help instructors respond to learning variability across countries. Designing culturally relevant instruction may entail regulating the degree to which leadership development programs conform to the Delphi experts™ recommendations and accounting for national values and the corresponding learning preferences. Learning preferences and demographics. How do learners™ characteristics (i.e. gender, sector, age and background education) relate to Arab preferences for leadership development? To address the fifth question, I will focus on the independent variables (educational background, sector, gender, and age) within level one of the HLM model and how it relates to each outcome variable (six learning preference s/constructs). The results for level-one are illustrated under each section related to each of th e demographics independent variables. It is important to note that this model includes both level-one (individual) and level-two (country) variables in the HLM; therefor e, I am controlling for the other independent variables while looking at the relationship between demographics and each dependent variable. Western and Arabic educational background. In this section I will analyze the relationship between education background (Arab = 0; Western/ mixed = 1) and the learning preferences of executives. I will first elaborate on the HLM results illustrated in Table 15. For further exploration in differences between educational backgrounds, I performed a Mann- Whitney U test for each of the items within the c onstructs, to determine if there are differences, 156 across educational backgrounds, in the median of responses of the individual items. Figure 27 shows the item mean differences from high to low across all items, grouped by constructs. In Appendix F, tables show the item means for each educational background and then the educational background difference, which is marked w ith an asterisk if that item was statistically significant according to the Mann-Whitney U test. The results of this statistical test identifies the items on which the two groups are different, without controlling for nesting or other variables. As such, the outcome of the Mann-Whitney U test should be used with caution as an indication of what may be important to attend to by leadership development designers. Table 15: Effects of Educational Background on Learning Preferences Education Background, 30 Dependent Variable Coeffi cient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .29** 0.45 (0.087) Leadership Competencies .245** 0.40 (0.089) Motivational Enablers .31** 0.44 (0.089) Barriers to Participation .24** 0.36 (0.083) Learning Environment .297** 0.47 (0.081) Instructor's Characteristics .33** 0.49 (0.082) * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 All constructs have a statistically significant difference across both educational backgrounds. For example, those with a Wester n/mixed high school education tend to rate learning activities 0.29 points higher than those with a full Arabic education background (30 = 0.29; p-value < .01), when holding region, age, gender, sector, and the homogeneity, PDI, and 157 UAI scores constant. The effect size of 0.45 is considered medium and indicates the change of LA in standard units between Arab full and Western educational background, conditional on the remaining independent variables. When other independent variables are held constant, the variance between executives™ preferences across both educational backgrounds shows that the executives with a Western/mixed educational background generally have a higher agreement level with the Delphi experts than executives with a full Arab educational background. Based on Figure 26, executives with Western educational backgrounds scored higher on almost all constructs except on the homogeneity (HO) construct (mean difference roughly -0.2). This means that executives with Arabic educa tional backgrounds agreed more positively with experts when it comes to cultural congruence (e.g., items with stat istically significant differences fiinstructor is Arab,fl fiparticipants are all Arabs,fl and fimaterials provided in Arabic languagefl). The higher agreement of executives who have attended mixed or Western educational institutions with the Delphi experts may be explained by the acculturation of Western-based learning approaches executives have been exposed to during their school years. None of the studies that I know of have examined, in th e Arab world, the influence of educational background on approaches to leadership development. However, Bakhtari (1995), who studied Arabic managers who immigrated to the US, fo und that managers™ education (mostly in the United States) was an important factor in the assimilation and acculturation process as they adapted to the new culture. Consequently, the type of education relates to the extent executives will be inclined to agree with the Delphi expert s. In particular, executives with a mixed/Western high school (i.e., modern in contrast to didact ic or traditional system) will tend to prefer experiential learning approaches (typically pr acticed in Western curricula) as recommended by the experts. For instance, executives disagree d mostly on the use of classroom discussions 158 engaging other participants, involving practitioners in the instructional process, adopting the case-based method, and integrating simulations as part of the activities (fimore opportunities for talk, and less reading material,fl fiinviting ke y speakers /practitione rs from the business community,fl ficase studies,fl and fiuse of simu lation toolsfl). They also disagreed on the importance of facilitation as a quality for the inst ructor (fiinstructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience,fl with a mean difference of 0.29, p- value < .01), the necessity to effectively resolve crisis in the corporation (fie ffective management during periods of crisisfl with a mean difference of 0.22, p-value < .01), a nd the value of access to the internet during leadership development sessions (fifacilities with access to wireless network and libraryfl with a mean difference of 0.25, p-value < .01). In general, those items reflect best practices common in the Western executive education interventions. Figure 26: Item Mean Difference by Education Background (Items Grouped by Constructs) Public and private sectors. In this section I will analyze the relationship between sectors in which executives work in (Public Sector /NGO= 0; Private Sector = 1) and the learning 159 preferences of executives. I will first elaborate on the HLM results illustrated in Table 15 shown below. For further exploration in differences between sectors, I performed a Mann-Whitney U test for each of the items within the constructs, to determine if there are differences, across sectors, in median responses of the individual items. Figure 27 shows the item mean differences from high to low across all items, grouped by constr ucts. In Appendix E, tables show the item means for each sector and then the sector differen ce, which is marked with an asterisk if that item was statistically significant according to the Mann-Whitney U test. The results of this statistical test identif ies the items that the two groups are different, without controlling for nesting or other variables. As such, the outcome of the Mann-Whitney U test should be used with caution. The findings should only be suggestive or descriptive and should only be indicative of what may be important to attend to by leadersh ip development designers. In Appendix G, the tables show the item means for each sector and th en sector differences, which is marked with an asterisk if that item was statistically signi ficant according to the Mann-Whitney U test. Table 16: Effects of Sector on Learning Preferences Sector, 50 Dependent Variable Coeffi cient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .198** 0.31 (0.087) Leadership Competencies .14** 0.24 (0.089) Motivational Enablers .199** 0.284 (0.089) Barriers to Participation .08 Learning Environment .18** 0.281 (0.08) Instructor's Characteristics .17** 0.25 (0.082) * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 160 All constructs (except BP) have a statistica lly significant difference across both sectors. For example, those working in the private sector tend to rate learning activities 0.198 points higher than those working in the public sector (50 = 0.31; p-value < .01), when holding region, age, gender, educational background, and the homogeneity, PDI, and UAI scores constant. The effect size of 0.31 is considered small and indicates the change of LA in standard units between public and private sectors, conditional on the remaining independent variables. When other independent variables are held constant, the variance between executives™ preferences across both sectors shows that the executives working in the private sector generally have a higher agreement level with the Delphi experts than exec utives who are working in the public sector or in NGOs. Notably, public and private sector executives differed in th eir relationship to the fijob-related competenciesfl leadership quality; public sector executives emphasized and scored higher than their counterparts in the private sector. This may be due to the need to address the fiabsence of a fair, equal and transparent recruitment policy, which may lead to favoritism, nepotism, and corruption, discriminatory or undeclared criter ia, restricted information, and a lack of accountability, lowering the quality of employees and the image of public sector employmentfl (Al-Sayyed, 2014, p. 119). Based on Figure 27, executives working in the private sector scored higher on almost all constructs except on the homogeneity (HO) c onstruct (mean difference roughly -0.75). Even though public sector executives scored lower, it should be noted that the differences between means of individual items were not statistically significant. This means that executives from both sectors equally agree on the importance of homogene ity/cultural congruence. 161 Taken together, and holding other independent variables constant, the data suggests that private sector employees may more readily adapt to modern leadership development approaches, and that public sector executives' more traditi onal perspectives need to be appreciated and integrated into the curriculum. Figure 27: Item Mean Difference by Sector Age groups. As mentioned in chapter three, exec utives were divided into three age groups: Millennials are under 34; GenX between 35-49; and Veterans/Baby Boomers being above 50 years old. To reiterate, Veteran and Baby Boomers were grouped under the same age bracket to suit the purpose of the study. Based on the HLM analysis used to investigate the relationship across ages of executives (Gen X = 0; Millennials and Baby Boomers/Veterans = 1) and the learning preferences of executives, the age demographic was only statistically significant for the learning environment construct. This m eans that the conditional mean difference between Veteran/Baby Boomers and Gen X was statistically significant. Specifically, those older than 50 years tend to rate learning environment 0.16 points higher than Gen X (born between 1966-1976) 162 (20 = - 0.16; p-value < .01), when controlling for region, sector, gender, educational background, and the homogeneity, PDI, and UAI scores. The effect size of 0.25 is considered small and indicates the change of LE in standard units as a function of the age category, conditional on the remaining independent variable. To explore th e difference between Veterans/Baby Boomers and the Millennials, I conducted a post-hoc test, which proved statistically insignificant. Table 17: The Effects of Age on Learning Preferences Millennials, 10 Veterans & Baby Boomers, 20 Dependent Variable Coefficient Effect Size (Error) Coefficient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .01 .01 Leadership Competencies -.014 .03 Motivational Enablers -.014 -.07 Barriers to Participation -.01 -.09 Learning Environment -.02 -.16** 0.25 (0.095) Instructor's Characteristics -.03 -.08 * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Figure 28 shows the item mean differences from high to low across the statistically significant items, which fall under the LE scale (tables with all items are included in Appendix H). The results are the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis H test and thus should be used with caution. The findings should only be suggestive or descriptive, as the Kruskal-Wallis H identifies the items that the three groups are different, with out controlling for nesting or other independent 163 variables. Those should only be indicative of what may be importa nt to attend to by leadership development designers. Findings show that both Millennials and Gen X value the use of learning resources in leadership programs such as fi materials accessible on the Web (v irtual learning environment)fl and fibook relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers.fl Regarding the older generation, Veterans and Baby Boomers stressed the importance of fijob-related competenciesfl as a conduit for eff ective leadership more than the other two age groups. This indicates the tendency for the older generation to value results, hard work and experience rather than just personal leadership qualities (Rood, 2011; Kupperschmidt, 2000). Figure 28: Item Means by Age Gender. Based on the HLM analysis, the relationship between the gender of executives (Male = 0; Females = 1) and their learning prefer ences was not statistically significant with the learning environment construct. To explore th e difference between specific items of the LSS 164 across genders, I ran the Kruskal-Wallis H test, which proved statistically significant across some selected items. With age as the independent variable, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis H test should be used with caution. The findings only suggest the magnitude of the differences between the two groups without controlling for nesting or other variables. Those should only assist leadership development designers to note the nuanced differences suggested by the statistical test. Table 18: Effect of Gender on Learning Preferences Gender, 40 Dependent Variable Coeffi cient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .03 Leadership Competencies .04 Motivational Enablers .02 Barriers to Participation -.02 Learning Environment -.02 Instructor's Characteristics .02 * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Figure 30 shows the item mean differences from high to low across the statistically significant items. The results are the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis H test and thus should be used with caution. The findings should only be suggestive or descriptive, as the Kruskal-Wallis H identifies the items that the two groups are di fferent, without controlling for nesting or other variables. Those should only be in dicative of what may be importa nt to attend to by leadership development designers. 165 Compared to male executives, females pl aced higher importance on several homogeneity items (e.g., fi instructor is Arabfl, 0.33, p-value < .01) and fifamily connections or interpersonal connectionsfl as a leadership comp etency (0.31, p-value < .01) (please refer to the table with all items included in Appendix I). In agreement with Western (Devault, 1997; Pleck & Rustad, 1980; Allen & Walker, 2000) and Arabic literature (Al-Barwani & Kelly, 1985), which indicate that marriage, household responsibilities and family structur es are among the most common reason cited by women for dropping out, female executives scored ficultural hurdles for femalesfl (mean difference of 0.28, p-value < .05) higher than their male counterparts. Bakhtari (1995), in studying the cultural effects on management styl es, found that Arab women are faced with a fidouble glass ceilingfl (p. 113) due to the accentuated barriers for women to break into managerial positions or pursue lifelong learning opportunities. This may be slowly changing, and recent trends in the Gulf region suggest that businesses are beginning to invest in women because they are less likely to drop out of university than men (e.g., at Kuwait University, women made up 70 per cent of graduates in 2012Œ13; Kuwaiti Annual Statistical Abstract, 2012). However, since women are of ten discouraged to travel abroad, it is usually the male students who receive scholarships to study overseas, thus increasing the divide in educational achievement between gender (Kinninmont, 2015). To further examine the difference between ma les and females especially across regions (Gulf and the Levant), I recommend exploring the interaction between gender differences and region. 166 Figure 29: Item Means by Gender Homogeneity. The homogeneity or cultural cong ruence predicted all dependent variables. The information in Level 1 HLM Tabl e 19 illustrates that when HO™s score increases by one point, then the learning activities score decreases by about 0.406 points (60 =0.41; p- value < .001) when holding age, gender, sector, region, PDI, and UAI scores constant. The HO effect size related to LA is 0.82, which is considered large. Compared to effect size averages of other independent variables (UAI = 0.24; PDI = 0.25; Sector = 0.27; Region = 0.28; Education Background = 0.43; Homogeneity = 0.93), HO is associated with the largest shift in constructs for each standard deviation of independent vari able (conditional on the remaining independent variable). 167 Table 19: Effects of Homogene ity on Learning Preferences Homogeneity, 60 Dependent Variable Coeffi cient Effect Size (Error) Learning Activities .41** 0.82 (0.06) Leadership Competencies .37** 0.79 (0.06) Motivational Enablers .41** 0.77 (0.07) Barriers to Participation .51** 1.02 (0.06) Learning Environment .53** 1.095 (0.059) Instructor's Characteristics .54** 1.05 (0.06) * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Results show that the executives with a hi gher HO generally have a higher agreement level with the Delphi experts than executives with lower HO. The sign and magnitude of the relationship between HO and learning preference constructs may be an indication that as aspects of leadership development programs become more homogeneous, executives will be more inclined to embrace best practices (which are in general simila r to Western models) nominated by the experts. Cultural sensitivity manifests itself in the classroom through a variety of modes (e.g., congruence across language, gender, content, and instruction). The considerably low value of HO scores, the nonsignificant difference in HO across both regions (Gulf and Levant), and the statistical significant positive relationship between HO and constructs may well lead us to think that HO is not in conflict with modern ways of learning. In a culture of shame where fisaving facefl is important (Ali, 1996, p. 9), high context i ndividuals have a strong awareness of the outside world and feel intensely sanctioned to meet the standards of the outside world (Benedict, 168 1946; Doi, 1979). Therefore, it is valuable to create a classroom environment where individuals feel safe to explore the less traditional practic es recommended by the Delphi Experts. This would be particularly helpful for nations with a high levels of PDI and UAI, where considerations need to be taken to support learners in raising th eir self-awareness about how they deal with inequalities and ambiguities and implications on the way they approach learning and leadership. Figure 30: Mean Construct Scores Across Nations Demonstrating how nations compare across constructs, Figure 30 depicts the mean constructs corresponding to each nationality . Nations scoring higher on the homogeneity construct have placed a higher valu e to cultural aspects of leadership programs. Emiratis, for example, may have scored higher than Yemeni s. In the face of the globalization and rapid growth transforming the United Arab Emirates, th e minority Emiratis (compared to number of expats living in the UAE) feel that their cultu ral heritage is being diluted (Willemyns, 2008). However, as the data show, Emiratis were in higher agreement with the Delphi experts than Yemenis, which may be related to the drastic changes that the UAE has gone through. As the political and socioeconomic landscape changes, it may be that scores and preferences of executives evolve and adapt accordingly. 169 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE This exploratory study aims to identify best pr actices, according to the beliefs of experts, associated with classroom-based professional development programs and examine the relationship between culture (both values and geographical regions) and learning preferences of Arab leaders. Existing literature suggests that approaches to learning vary across cultures and highlight the mismatch between modern (i.e ., imported Western) pedagogical models and traditional orientations to learning typically f ound in the Arab classroom. Yet research in the Arab world on executive education is at a very early stage. To date, the limited number of studies still struggle to examine Arab executives™ le arning preferences and how they vary across nationalities, geographical regions, educational background (Western vs. Arabic high school), sector, gender, and age. To propose a model for an effective leadersh ip development program that addresses the aforementioned differences, this study endeavors to address the following overarching goals: (a) identify what Arab leadership development expe rts consider as best practices for classroom- based Arab leadership development programs, (b) examine how 837 leaders from 11 Arab countries view the leadership development best practices iden tified by the experts, and (c) highlight how learners™ backgrounds relate to their approaches to learning. The study specifically examined how cultural dimensions, as defined by Hofstede (2010), geographical regions, and demographics relate to executiv es™ learning preferences (e.g., their views on various aspects of leadership development curricula, instructi onal methodologies, leadership competencies, motivation enablers, perceived barriers, instructors™ qualities and learning environment). 170 To respond to the study research questions, I have drawn on an existing set of data generated by a research team working in a mu ltinational consulting firm based in the UAE. The data was generated through three phases. First, the Delphi process was used to survey 24 experts in the field of executive education to determin e the factors that they deem significant in influencing the effectiveness of the design and delivery of leadership professional development programs. The Delphi procedure was followed by eight face-to-face interviews to elucidate issues (e.g., gender and cultural sensitivity) that arose from the De lphi process. The third phase of data collection used a large scale forced-choice method questi onnaire administered to more than 1,500 business leaders from 17 different co untries, carried out by internet exchange, telephone and written correspondence. This large-scale survey (composed of 115 survey items with a total of 174,915 data cells) identified Arab leaders™ cultural background and gauged executives™ responses to the best practices that the experts interviewed in the first two phases have recommended. The study leverages the large scale survey to construct seven scales that capture the learning preferences of executives, particularly in relation to learning activities (LA), leadership competencies (LC), motivation enablers (ME), barriers to participation (BP), instructor™s characteristics (IC), learning environment ( LE), and homogeneity ( HO). The relationship between learning preferences and national values (Power Distance Index and Uncertainty Avoidance Index), regional geographies (Levant and Gulf), and demographics (age, gender, sector, and educational background) was examined. The Levant re gion in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) included Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. The MENA Gulf region included the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwa it, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. 171 Building on the study summary of findings, this chapter discusses three main themes: (a) the significance of the study in terms of theory and future re search, (b) imp lications to practice/policies, and (c) limitations of the study. Summary of Results and Discussions per Question Research Question 1. What are the most effective Arab leadership development practices as identified by traini ng experts? The Delphi experts nominated 174 be st practices to be incorporated in leadership development programs. Recommendations from experts were qualitatively classified as universal/Western (150 items) and local (24 items). Aspects of leadership development progr ams recommended by the experts reflect an experiential approach to teaching, instructor™s characteristics, and learning environment with a focus on higher levels of in teraction/socially driven activities and less reading. Modern methods of learning (case based studies and assessments) require that executives are equipped with synthesis, analytical, reflection and evaluation skills as well as the predisposition to a ccept feedback/constructive criticism from others. When it comes to the design of the c ontent and determining the leadership competencies to be developed, the Delphi expe rts cover a set of attributes and skills that draw from Western theories of leadership, such as trait, situational, relational, ethical and servant perspectives. Transcendental qual ities of leadership were emphasized in particular attention to the emotional, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of a leader. Transforming relationships among their people without imposing as well as timely and democratic decision-making are critical to the effectiveness of Arab executives. Output/results driven competencies (reach ing targets and understanding balance sheet) were stressed as well as clear, fair, a nd transparent approaches for performance 172 management. Experts recommend executives to see the potential and empower their followers, while adopting a structured approach to management and maintaining control over situations. Crisis management has been emphasized to promote agility in a region with economic instability and political unrest. L&D specialists may need to ensure that executives are equipped with skills that will enable them to effectively discuss performance of subordinates, resolve conf licts (negotiation, debating, and consensus building), and challenge the authority of superiors/peers/in-group members without showing insubordination or lack of loyalty/conformity to regulations. Motivational enablers fell under the three learning orientations (i.e., networking, job related, and personal growth) found in the Western literature with an emphasis on updating/refreshing/renewing executives™ know ledge with timely best practices and a desire to see the macro pictur e (global learners). Further, the clarity of objectives and practicality of content as well as the quality and relevance of the program syllabus were valued. The extent to which participants know each other was also suggested as a motivator. Barriers to participation are typical of what was found in Western literature (dispositional and situational) with cost and timing of the program ranked highest. However, some Arabic specific barriers incl ude time to go abroad, course requirements such as exams/attendance/readings, low reputat ion of the training provider, female related hurdles and perception of the training. Over 30% of the barriers were related to the corporation/institution, which may discourag e individuals from pursuing lifelong learning through its disinterested culture, lack of a career path (partnership or sharing revenues), and stability/stress levels of the work environment. 173 Instructor's Characteristics: Instructors w ith a highly recognized stature (title, reputation and seniority), recruited from outside the workpl ace/organization and equipped with high facilitation skills a nd strong business leadership credibility are valued. Experts demonstrate a preference for instructors w ho are skilled in using technologies and e-lectures in the classroom. Inviting well-known business leaders was emphasized. Learning Environment: A high emphasis was placed on a multifunctional classroom that warrants comfort, immersi on in learning, access to off-site learning, convenience, collaboration and web access. The learning kit ought to avail industry-based resources and contain minimum hard copy materials. Research Question 2. What are the similarities and di fferences between experts™ and Arab learners™ views of best leadership development practices? Executives and experts generally agreed on all constructs related to learning activities, motivation enablers, and instructor™s characteristics. Compared to the executives, experts empha sized problem-solving skills as well as on ethical approaches to leadership. Executives viewed such factors as hurdles for females, training providers™/business school's reputation, and the role of the institution/cooperation as having a more significant effect on participation than the experts did. Executives also valued more favorably the need for comfort in the physical environment (LE) and st ressed the importance of culture related practices (instructi on attuned to Arab culture, not Western and Instructor is Arab, from a different Arab countr y, and same Arab country). Research Question 3. How do geographic regional differences relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about central aspects of leadership development programs? Levant executives agreed with the experts more consistently than their 174 counterparts in the Gulf. Levant executives placed higher emphasis on experiential learning practices (LA), Western models of leadership (trait, situational, relational, servant, and ethical perspectives), facilitative instructional practices (IC), and modern views for the setup of physical space and course materials. Research Question 4. How do cultural dimensions relate to learning preferences of Arab leaders, particularly to their views about centr al aspects of leadership development programs? Individuals from nations with stronger beliefs in hierarchical and unequal power dynamics, as well as individuals from nations with low tolerance for ambiguities, agree less with the Delphi experts on the importance of severa l aspects related to leadership development. Higher values of PDI and UAI were, generally, related to an inclination towards didactic approaches of learning, autocratic models of leadership, lecture or th eory based instruction and traditional views for physical spaces and classroom tools. Research Question 5. How do learners™ characteristic s (i.e. gender, sector, age, homogeneity, and education backgro und) relate to Arab preferences for leadership development? Statistically, the majority of constructs varied by sector, educational background and homogeneity. Findings suggest that priv ate sector employees with Western/mixed educational backgrounds may more readily ad apt to modern leadership development approaches. Conversely, public sector executives with Arabic educational backgrounds may be more inclined to prefer traditional perspectives of learning and leadership. Executives valuing homogeneity (inclinati on to collaborate with same gender participants, tribal/nationality affiliation, a nd instructional methods relevant to Arabic context) agreed with the Delphi experts mo re than executives with lower homogeneity. This may suggest that HO is not in conflict with modern learning practices and leadership 175 models. Instead, it may be a reflection of execu tives™ attempt to preserve the cultural identity of the Umma while modernizing their practices to foster growth and openness in a rapidly globalized world (Cook, 1999). It was also suggested that the Millennials and Gen X exhibit a high preference for the use of digital- and industry-based resources. Compared to men, female executives believe that their leadership development faces higher cultural hurdles, and they are inclined to preserve cultural congruence in the classroom. It should be noted that this study reflects experts™ recommendations and executives™ preferences captured in 2012. As such, findings relate to the socioeconomic and political landscape of the MENA region at a time when Arab spring upri sings had just begun, near the beginning of the civil war in Syria, and before the rise of the Islamic State . The relationships, which have been established in this study between regional differences (Gulf and Levant) and nations™ PDI and UAI, encapsulate the current st ate of how executives approach learning and management situations. Because of the volatility and cultural shif ts readily apparent in MENA, the experts and executives™ approaches to leadership and education may shift with time, and a reassessment of their inclinations towards lead ership development programs or a longitudinal study may need to be conducted as the Arab region™ s social values, economic status and political make up changes and evolve with current events (e.g., war conflicts and changes in regimes, distribution of wealth, and population density). Significance of the Study The How Arab Executives Learn (HAL) study, by drawing on experts who have identified a set of 174 best-practices, captures what (imported Western) features need to be modified or contextualized to respond to the needs of the Arab adult learner. This study 176 highlighted the practices specific to th e Arab context but also showed that within the Arab countries, regional differences are associated with the way learners perceive those practices. Beyond regional differences, this study analyzed how cultural values (i.e., Hofstede™s 2001 dimensions) relate to student™s learning preferen ces. Understanding how such national constructs are associated with learning preferences has impl ications for educators. Can or should a training program at the leadership level in culcate values that are not part of the local culture, or should such programs only reinforce the norms already exis ting in a certain society? As this question is still unanswered, coupled with the fact that mean ingful and long lasting change takes decades, I doubt that a single training program can change the minds or per ceptions of Arab leaders living in the Arab world. As such, in this study, r ecommendations to educators will help situate students within their cultural context (i.e., the study identifies Hofstede™s 2001 values specific to each nationality). The study also highlights how such cultural indices relate to the way that learning is perceived by the students in various Arab nations (e.g., a high power distance is associated with an understanding that a teacher is the guru, quality of learning depends on qualification of teachers, and students are de pendent on teacher; Hofstede et al., 2010). From an empirical perspective, the associations made betwee n the variables are important for research, as the study attempted to explore an d determine if and to what degree a relationship exists between cultures, learning preferences, an d executives™ characteristics. Future research, however, needs to examine whether such practices and learning preferences actually enhance the effectiveness of classroom-based leadership development programs. Future research also needs to offer insights and empirical data detailing the depth of these cultural differences, the level and quality of cultural beliefs in different groups, if differences reflect dissimilar behavioral 177 preferences or mirror deeper phenomenological differences, and how those differences respond to globalization (Sampson, 1989). One of the study™s central findings is that culture has a pervasive influence on executives™ learning preferences. In this study, culture was operationalized using nationality and regional differences as independent variables. It was mani fested in the classroom as a set of preferences exhibited by both experts and executives. As a result, the Homogeneity (HO) construct, which neither has an equivalent in Western scholarsh ip nor has been empirically examined by Arab studies, expresses preferences for using instructional approaches attuned to the Arabic culture, incorporating the Arabic language and culturally relevant content in instruction, promoting leaders based on family and personal connections, encouraging the inclusi on of participants and instructors with the same gender and nationality. Future research could investigate how the homogeneity scale relates to self-construals such as interdependence and the collectivist cultural dimension. The methodological contribution of the study is the use of HLM, for the first time, to account for the clustering of nationality and regional differences of Arab executives learning preferences, all the while examin ing their individual characteristics. Limitations corresponding to the study methods will be discus sed later in this chapter. Implications to Practice and Policies This study™s practical implications include recommendations to key stakeholders in education, adult learning, and professional development such as governments (ministry of labor/education), business schools/training providers and organization capability development experts (instructors/trainers, Chief Learning Officers, and L&D consultants). The results of the study encourages the appreciation of local tr adition and openness to new approaches to 178 leadership and learning. As the L&D practice cannot be taken in isolation, designing leadership development programs should consider the cont extual parameters that surround the learning experience as well as the individual needs of the learner. Va riability between regions and nationalities as well as within nations (among c itizens) should be well understood to customize culturally responsive L&D interventions. The conceptual model shown below captu res how region, national values, sector, educational background, and age relate to executives™ learning preferences, noting effect sizes and positioning executives™ responses within the continuum of high versus low agreement with the Delphi experts. Based on the model, addressi ng variability between those who agree with the experts and those who considerably agree less with the experts may lead to two principal outcomes: (a) shifting leadership instructional stra tegies to suit what the experts belief is best practice and (b) in doing so, executives who ha ve agreed less positively with the experts may experience tension in accommodating new ways of learning and modern approaches to leadership. Both the shift and tension are part of the strenuous process of change, which executives may need to undergo should they want to adopt the recommendations nominated by the experts. Practical suggestions on how to re spond to change will be discussed briefly in the section below. 179 Figure 31: Conceptual Model Relating Executive s' Characteristics to Learning Preferences Need for a gradual shift. Based on the conceptual model shown in Figure 31, individuals with a full Arab educ ational background, from the Gulf , working in the public sector or NGO, with high PDI and UAI, and older than 50 years, were most likely to be in lower agreement with the Delphi experts, when contro lling for independent variables. The analysis in this study showed that regional and national values explained, at least partially, the magnitude and direction of the relationship between culture and the inclination to agree less or more with the experts. Many sociologists beli eve that such national cultures and values do actually change with time. Beteille (1969) uses th e concept of inequality (which relates to PD I) to illustrate how fi[t]he decline of the legitimacy of social inequality did not star t everywhere at the same time and has not proceeded equally far in every society... But today there are few societies in the world 180 where an ideology of inequality would be allowed to pass unchallengedfl (p. 366-367). In contrast, Hofstede (2001) argues, based on his empirical IBM studies, that even though the PDI indices of some of the countries have been sl ightly reduced, they have not converged across countries. Because inequalities are deeply rooted in the history of a nation, the homogenization of individuals in regards to fidependence, independence and interdependence under the influence of a presumed cultural melting-pot pr ocess is still very far away, if it will ever happenfl (p. 122). Beyond the debate around the changes in cultural norms, with the increased levels of education and technologies, the youth and the middle class are becoming more sensitive to the appeal for more equality (Lederer, 1982). This desire, even if it does not reflect the reality on the ground, is the first step in the change process. Going back to the sample of this study, it also seems that the majority of executives score d, on average, between 4 and 5 on all learning preferences. For example, even though the public sector executives exhibited a desire to agree with the experts to a less degree than employees working in the private sector, the average of all their mean scores related to learning preferen ces was 4.024 (mean scores on dependent variables ranged between 3.77- 4.5). This average suggests that, based on the stem of the scales, the majority of public sector employees choose options from the Likert scale that fell between no effect to some positive effect. This reflects an in clination (farther than the experts from than the private sector) to agree with the Delphi experts. The statistical difference between experts ac ross both sectors may be linked to the legal and economic structures in the Gulf region, particularly the structures that divide citizens from expatriates and drive the majority of nationals (locals) into the public sector (Gardner, 2011). This trend was accentuated after the Arab uprisings , which has led the Gulf region to revert to short-termist policies of increasing public sect or spending and employme nt by investing more 181 than US$150 billion to create tens of thousands of new public-sector jobs. Parallel to this development, expatriates, who cost less, have fe wer labor rights, and often have more relevant skills that match the needs of the market/bus inesses (Kinninmont, 2015) are pulled into the private sector. Nationals, who constitute the bulk of public sector workforce, are more inclined to use traditional leadership styles and didactic approaches to learning, as they are usually graduates of public schools. Scoring lower on items related to the use of icebreakers, simulations, case studies, role play, facilitative discussions, problem-solving, and co llaborative activities, indicates a preference for less modern approaches to leadership development. Noting the preferences of public sector employees, governments, and business schools who wish to align with best practices proposed by the experts, are recommended to adopt a gradual approach in shifting beliefs around learning and leadership. Governments can start influencing the shif t early on by infusing modern instructional practices (e.g., social constructivist approaches and student-centered education) in Arabic/public school K-16 systems as well as embedding valu es related to transparency, responsibility, independence of thought, tolerance, diligence, flexibility, modesty and equality across disciplines, noting the value of their cultural he ritage and national roots as well their Arab identity. The integration of some of the mode rn teaching and thinking practices may prepare aspiring leaders to be more inclined to adopt be st practices in development and leadership as viewed by the experts. Business schools and leadership development sp ecialists (instructor/consultant/coach) are advised to follow a three-step approach to help established leaders with the gradual shift. First, leadership professors need to work with executives to understand where they are in the continuum by assessing their preferences against the best practices. Using this study solely to 182 make generalizations or predic tions about a group of people with certain characteristics may result in the lack of appreciation of the indi viduality of executives. Consequently, instructors need to thoroughly assess who constitutes the group. Secondly, based on the assessment results, the instructor and executives need to identify as pects of learning and leadership approaches that need to be changed/shifted. This phase defines what the group wants to get out of the leadership development experience. Thirdly, based on a prior ity list that both instructor and executives agree upon, the instructor devises a curriculum that a ddresses the areas that need to be reinforced and changed. Involving the executives in the process may help increase their investment in the change process. This phase captures how the group will get where it wants to be. Need to be cautious of the tension. Parallel to the gradual shift that needs to be adopted, moving executives from the Gulf region, who have been educated in Arabic curricula in particular, across the continuum may create tension. Based on the examination of the relationship between regions (Gulf vs. Levant) and executives™ learning preferences, holding all other variables constant, Gulf executives agreed less with the experts than their counterparts in the Levant. Levant executives placed higher impor tance on experiential learning practices (LA), Western models of leadership (trait, situational, relational, servant, and ethical perspectives), facilitative instructional practices (IC), and modern views for the setup of physical space and course materials. To help executives from the Gulf shift towards the best practices as defined by the experts, Western instructional methods (e.g., use of case-study methods), Western models of leadership (e.g., democratic decisi on making as leadership quality), and digital technologies need to be incorporated into the curriculum. The rigid ity of structures in autocratic leadership model and didactic approaches embedded in the Arab ic K-12 schooling may lead to frustration and tension on the part of the Gulf executives who were educated in Arabic schools. 183 The Gulf, a space geographically and cultura lly positioned between the East and the West, is trying to leverage its economic prosperity, wealth of na tural resources, a nd rapid growth to advance toward a future that is able to sustain development without depending on oil. Indeed, Gulf leaders have set an ambitious strategy to build its knowledge economy in the next decade. The region has a great potential to diversify its economy, creating a stronger middle class, encouraging entrepreneurial initiatives, advancin g research and development agenda, increasing reliance on local innovative intellectual capabilities, and achieving gender equity across sectors and leadership roles. As such, to help executives from the Gulf respond to the changes facing their region, business schools may need to unde rstand how experts™ learning and leadership concepts may be at odds with the current be liefs of Gulf/Arabic educated executives. To advocate for experiential learning and modern approaches for leadership in management programs, L&D experts are recommended to, firstl y, ensure that executives recognize the value of adopting experts™ modern approaches. For exam ple, for leaders to achieve targets or goals, effectively manage during period of crisis, and lead teams, they will also need to draw on fair performance management systems, take account ability for both successes and failures, and empower teams to promote autonomy in a systematic and structured manner. Associating the rise of a leader to wasta, adopting a laissez-faire approach to supervising teams, avoiding tough discussions required to address inefficiencies and corruptions, and following an authoritative style of leadership may not be a conduit to fair treatment and may impact negatively the formation of a high performance culture. Conseque ntly, aligning leadership attributes with what the organization needs to implement its business strategy (deliver results externally) and perpetuate the principles of sound performance ma nagement system (internally) should be an integral part of the leadership development pr ocess. Engaging executives in identifying those 184 critical leadership attributes may promote their ownership and appreciation of the standards they set to themselves. L&D specialists, then, need to support executives in developing the specific skills and knowledge associated with the agreed upon competen cies. Exercises and activities may include the development of debating, conf lict resolution, democratic decision making, negotiations, and performa nce management skills. Another example may be linked to the homogene ity construct, which was equally valued by the Gulf and Levant executives. Executives believed that instruction should be attuned to the Arab culture (local and relevant content) and delivered in Arabic. The selection of participants and/or instructor of same ge nder and nationality was also considered more important to executives compared to experts in promoting cult ural congruence. Executives also viewed family and personal connections as a positive factor influencing how individuals should become business leaders. Based on the statistical analysis of items related to cultural congruence, data shows that the largest effect size (0.9) acros s all independent variables was produced by the Homogeneity construct. In the face of globa lization, however, experts have recommended promoting cross-cultural manage ment practices by pushing to wards greater diversity and multiculturalism (e.g., a culturally inclusive mission statement and ability to work effectively within a multicultural environment). Thus, to reduce the tension or expressed concerns from executives regarding insensitivity to their local culture (which is represented through HO in the classroom), it may be wise to cautiously, system atically, and sensitively introduce participants from a range of different countries and a range of business backgrounds into the classroom. As such, it may be necessary to teach cross-cultural business semantics, norms, and approaches to leadership both within the Arab world and acr oss non-Arab nations. In addition to highlighting cultural differences, it would be insightful to reinforce the commonalities that exist between 185 societies (e.g., overlapping concepts between Islamic principles and Western models). Building on common grounds and shared values as well as raising awareness of the importance of understanding others™ perspectives and backgrounds may help promote synergy and dampen conflicts, which may arise between groups from different countries. Study Limitations This study does not address whether these shifts will happen, if tensi ons will resolve or if change can be sustained in the long term. The design of this research is exploratory in nature and is based on observational data (rather than an experiment). Results should be used cautiously because, as mentioned earlier, they reflect relations hips between data points collected three years ago, in 2012. Additionally, the study only aimed at examin ing the preferences of executives and the perceptions of what the experts view as desirabl e. This study does not investigate real behaviors of executives, which may be a more accurate m easure of how they actually approach learning. Nor does it define best practices based on measur ed interventions. Further research may examine experts™ recommendations to test the effectiveness of the instructional methods, which have been nominated during the De lphi procedure. A third important limitation to this study is th e lack of psychometric information for the homogeneity construct and the limited validity and reliability of all learning preferences constructs. One of the challenges associated wi th the limited validity and reliability is the assumption that the constructs were unidimensi onal. During the analysis of individual items under each construct, several items acted in a multi-dimensional nature. This multi- dimensionality suggests that the scale, which wa s created, did not take into account the complex relationships existing between items. 186 Further, the survey of the sc ores of the items may be lim ited by the effect of social desirability. Executives™ nationalities may incline them to respond to items with bias. Research has shown that the Americans tend to use more extreme values in their scoring, whereas Easterners are more inclined to use moderate points (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002). Heine and colleagues (2002) explain that this inclination may be e ither related to cross cultural reasons or reference group effects, and that they may not be present with cert ain types of items. Items that require more introspection or comp arison with internal, rather than external, comparisons and items that measure concrete beha viors tend to show less bias in cross-cultural comparisons. Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, and Shavitt (2005) actually utilized Hofstede's cultural dimensions and compared the different dimensions with two different types of response styles, extreme response and acquiescence. Their results showed that at least some of these cultural dimensions do have a significant relati onship with different response styles. When interpreting the UAI and PDI values, ca ution should be taken when considering the UAE, as the sample size of the group was 11. This sample is far smaller than the recommendations of Ho fstede et al. (2008). In regards to the modelling procedure follo wed in this study, the assumption of the linearity of the HLM model is a limitation as it imposes a linear re lationship between the independent and dependent variables. Lastly, doing statistical tests for individual items means that a large number of tests may produce a sizable overall error rate. Addressing multiple testing is an important concern in several contexts, such as testing a composite hypothesis, relying on statistical hypothesis testing as a mechanism for model-buildi ng, or when causal inference is the goal. However, the models 187 adopted in this study are considered to be hypothesis-driven and are not aimed at making a causal inference. As such, multiple testing concerns do not necessarily need to be considered. Conclusion This study adds to the literature in three main ways. Firs t, the study identifies best practices for classroom-based leadership develo pment programs as per experts™ views. Second, the study compares experts to executives™ views in regards to effective aspects of leadership development programs. Third, the study explores how regional differences, cultural values, and demographics relate to Arab ex ecutives™ approaches to learning. Drawing on the review of literature, some of the best practices recommended by the experts aligned with Western theo ries of learning and leadership and some were specific to Arabic scholarship. Experts™ views may be captured as a way forward to integrate Western standards with Arabic nuanced practices. Business schools, training providers and L&D experts that aspire to reduce conflict between what executives prefer and best practices nominated by the experts need to consider both sides of the equation (the l earner and the expert). As such, designing programs that address the difference may help customizing interventi ons to not only suit experts™ views but also executives™ preferences. Findings of the study show how region, national values, sector, and education background explain variability in executives™ preferences to learning. Practical steps that may help facilitate the shifts needed to move execu tives closer to what th e experts are recommending, have been proposed. Surprisingly, age and gender did not lead to statistically significant differences. However, post hoc statistical tests suggest that, unlike Veterans and Baby Boomers, 188 the Millennials and Gen X are inclined to choose to use technology infused and industry based classroom resources. A main outcome of the study findings was the operationalization of the cultural congruence between executives and approaches to leadership development. The homogeneity scale captured executives™ affinity to local cultura l traditions/values in th e learning environment. The fact that executives showed an inclination toward higher tightness to same grouping, language, instructional methods, and gender, the homogeneity construct was associated with a positive agreement with several Western models of learning and leadership. Would that be due to the fact that executives™ way to express preferences towards a lternating between two forms of beliefs: attachment to local/tribal culture and Western characteristics of learning and leadership approaches? There may be a resemblance between such inclinations and Nisbett™s (2003) views of individuals who are exposed to Westernization and globalization, those prone to becoming fibiculturalfl (p. 228) in response to blended social systems, interests, and values. If cultures are indeed converging (Nisbett, 2003), the differences in perception and beliefs of Arab executives may not only fluctuate with time but may also be deeply affected by the current wars, surge of fundamentalists, refugees exodus (e .g., Iraq, Syria, and Yemen), high labor turnover, incompatibility in types of educati onal levels/skills with the current market needs, and the mergers and takeovers processes of multinational corporations. This complex formula may lead to mounting levels stre ss and anxiety thus increasing countries™ UAI levels. This shift to higher UAI is finoticeable in intolerance, xenophobia, religions, and political fanaticismfl and all the other manifestations of uncertainty av oidance discussion in earlier in chapter four (Hofstede, 2001, p. 182). War threats may pull in othe r countries that did not show the same high levels of UAI but may need to engage in the conflict to reduce ambiguities, thus introducing a 189 new wave of anxiety to the region that could be a prelude to new wars. The challenge to the Arab world is to break this vicious circle. Effective leadership development may be a powerful path to that end. 190 APPENDICES 191 Appendix A Selected Delphi Items and Ratings Methodological note: readers will note that the tables in this Appendix report on a large number of tests with statistical signifi cance. Doing statistical tests for a large number of individual items will produce a sizeable error rate . I recognize that many of the repor ts of statistical significance at the .05 levels in these tables may represent su ch errors. However, in light of the purpose of this study I am reporting all thes e tests of significance without using some statistical procedure for controlling the overall error rate. Addressing multiple testing is an important concern in several contexts, such as testing a composite hypothesis, relying on statistical hypothesis testing as a mechanism for model-buildi ng, or when causal inference is the goal. However, the models adopted in this study are considered to be hypothesis-driven and are not aimed at making a causal inference. As such, the overall e rror rate is not a serious concern. Relevant list of items and ratings for Round 2 and 3. The results of these rounds were compiled in terms of the average rating and standard deviation for each item. Key Top 5 highest expert-rated items Œto be on Large Scale Survey First Column Œ Expert initial ratings Second Column - Expert revised ratings af ter seeing mean ratings of other experts LV Œ unusually than average variance Section 1. The methods of leadership training 1a. Training Activities Directions. Rate the effect of the following leadership training activities on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect a nd one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect)––1 (strong negative effect) Case studies 4.63 4.63 0.49 0.49 Interacting with other participants 4.38 4.38 0.49 0.49 Collaborative problem solving of non-wo rk problems, like building a plane. 192 4.29 4.38 LV 0.86 0.65 Icebreaker activities 4.33 4.33 0.70 0.64 Interacting with the instructor 4.29 4.29 0.46 0.46 Role-play activities 4.29 4.29 0.69 0.69 Interacting with senior business leaders 4.29 4.29 0.62 0.46 Collaborative problem solving of real problems 4.21 4.29 0.83 0.55 Outdoor activities 4.17 4.25 1.01 0.79 LV Mind mapping activities 4.21 4.21 0.66 0.66 360-degree review (performance review from pe ople at all levels in the organization) 4.17 4.17 0.56 0.38 On-the-job seminars (sessions are on-site) 4.00 4.13 0.98 0.68 Team building activities 3.92 4.13 1.32 0.95 LV Meeting well-known business leaders Œ Richard Branson for example. 4.00 4.00 0.59 0.42 Examining one™s own practice as a business leader 4.00 4.08 193 0.78 0.50 Presentations are to the point without a lot of data 3.42 3.58 0.97 0.72 LV 1b. Training Location Directions. Rate the effect of the following aspects of the training location on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect)––1 (strong negative effect) Big, well-equipped place like university or hotels with easy access to more information and facilities 4.46 4.46 0.66 0.59 Outside the normal work environment 4.33 4.33 0.70 0.64 Facilities available to relax 3.67 3.71 0.70 0.69 1c. Participants Directions. Rate the effect of the following qualities of the participants on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect)––1 (strong negative effect) Participants are from a ra nge of different countries 4.25 4.29 0.90 0.81 LV Participants are from a range of different business sectors 3.83 3.88 0.87 0.74 LV 1d. Instructor Qualities 194 Directions. Rate the effect of the following instructor qualities on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect)––1 (strong negative effect) Instructor has experience as a business leader 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Instructor is able to explain the meani ng of the content, not just present it 4.50 4.50 0.51 0.51 Instructor is famous as a business leader 4.42 4.42 0.65 0.50 More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 4.38 4.38 0.58 0.58 Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 4.35 4.33 0.49 0.48 Case studies are relevant to the Arab world 4.29 4.29 0.62 0.55 Instructor is an outside expert, rather than someone from the same organization 4.21 4.21 0.72 0.72 LV Sessions strive to provide mo re information in less time 3.79 3.83 .98 1.01 LV Instructor uses latest technology, like e-lectures 3.79 3.79 0.78 0.72 LV Instruction is according to Arab culture, not Western culture 3.58 3.58 0.65 0.58 Instructor is from the same country 195 3.17 3.17 0.38 0.38 Instructor is Arab 3.13 3.13 0.54 0.61 Instructor is Western 2.92 2.88 0.50 0.68 1e. Training Materials Directions. Rate the effect of the following qualities of the training materials on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect)––1 (strong negative effect) Attractive and colorful hard copy materials 3.67 3.79 1.43 0.93 LV Minimal hard copy materials 3.14 3.08 0.99 0.72 LV Section 2. The content of leadership training 5 (most important)–.1 (least important) Ability to be a team leader 4.67 4.71 0.56 0.46 Ability meet targets or goals 4.54 4.67 0.51 0.48 Problem solving ability 4.67 4.67 0.48 0.48 Ability to serve as a role model 196 4.63 4.63 0.49 0.49 Effective analysis of work situations 4.63 4.63 0.49 0.49 Effective management during periods of crisis 4.63 4.63 0.49 0.49 Ability to be a team member 4.58 4.58 0.58 0.58 Success factors in business 4.54 4.58 0.51 0.50 Ability to implications of mistakes 4.58 4.58 0.50 0.50 Ability and willingness to work hard 4.58 4.58 0.50 0.50 Ability to work at multiple le vels within the organization 4.58 4.58 0.50 0.50 Ability to sees potential in others 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Effective use of performance measurement and reward 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Effective management of time 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Knowledge of people with whom one works 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Ability to be proactive 197 4.50 4.54 0.66 0.59 Ability to supervise others 4.54 4.54 0.51 0.51 Ability to give instructions 4.50 4.54 0.66 0.59 Ability to be innovative 4.50 4.50 0.59 0.51 Ability to treat people as human beings 4.58 4.50 0.50 0.59 Confidence 4.50 4.50 0.51 0.51 A sense of focus 4.50 4.50 0.51 0.51 Creativity 4.50 4.50 0.51 0.51 Hands -on experience 4.46 4.50 0.51 0.51 Willingness to be managed 4.50 4.50 0.51 0.51 Ability to motivate and engage employees 4.46 4.46 0.51 0.51 A good-natured personality 4.46 4.46 0.51 0.51 Ability to take the organization to where it should be 4.46 4.46 198 0.59 0.51 Adaptability 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Ability to regularly communicate with employees 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Listening skills 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Ability to gain trust of employees 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Ability to find areas for improvement 4.38 4.42 0.65 0.58 Ability to work effectively with in a multicultural environment 4.39 4.38 0.50 0.49 Ability to be accepted as a leader by those he or she leads 4.38 4.38 0.58 0.49 Understanding of balance sheet 4.21 4.38 0.59 0.49 Flexibility 4.33 4.33 0.48 0.48 Presentation skills 4.33 4.33 0.48 0.48 Charisma 4.25 4.33 0.74 0.48 Democratic decision-making processes 4.25 4.29 0.74 0.62 199 Ability to use humor appropriately 4.25 4.25 0.61 0.44 Compassion 4.25 4.25 0.44 0.44 Patience 4.21 4.25 0.66 0.53 A culturally inclusive mission statement 4.13 4.13 0.68 0.61 Diligence 4.04 4.13 0.62 0.45 Section 3. Participants™ Motivation 5 (most important)–.1 (least important) Opportunity to realign 4.42 4.46 0.50 0.51 Desire to see the big picture 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Opportunity to network 4.42 4.42 0.58 0.50 Clarity of the objectives 4.42 4.42 0.50 0.50 Desire to go beyond just following orders 4.33 4.38 0.56 0.58 The nature of the training program syllabus 4.38 4.38 0.58 0.49 200 Requirements of the organization 4.38 4.38 0.49 0.49 Practicality of the content offered 4.38 4.38 0.49 0.49 Opportunity for personal development 4.38 4.38 0.58 0.49 Extent to which training will contribute to organization 4.38 4.38 0.49 0.49 Participant™s understanding of role in his or her company 4.33 4.33 0.56 0.48 Presence of a supportive work environment 4.33 4.33 0.48 0.48 Need to update or learn new skills or competencies 4.38 4.33 0.49 0.48 Availability of budget 4.29 4.33 0.62 0.56 Needs of one™s work situation 4.29 4.33 0.55 0.56 Extent to which training is tailored to needs of participants 4.29 4.29 0.46 0.46 Payment of training course by your employer (company) 4.29 4.29 0.62 0.62 Roles in leadership 4.29 4.29 0.46 0.46 Love of what one does 201 4.25 4.29 0.53 0.55 Progression in one™s career 4.25 4.25 0.61 0.53 Qualifications of the instructor 4.25 4.25 0.68 0.61 Presenters from institutions with worldwide reputation 4.17 4.13 0.64 0.61 Reputation of the training program 4.13 4.08 0.74 0.65 Days and times training is offered 3.63 3.63 0.71 0.82 Instructor from a Western country 3.21 3.21 0.59 0.59 Instructor from an Arab country 3.04 3.04 0.55 0.55 Instructor from a diffe rent Arab country 2.96 2.96 0.46 0.46 Section 4: Barriers to Participation 5 (most important)–.1 (least important) Timing of the program 4.54 4.58 0.72 0.50 Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 3.83 3.92 0.96 0.83 The corporate culture 202 3.71 3.79 0.62 0.51 Perception about training 3.71 3.75 0.69 0.61 Too much content used in the training 3.58 3.71 1.06 0.62 Unwillingness of companies to e ngage employees as partners like in the Western world 3.67 3.67 0.87 0.56 Cultural hurdles for females 3.38 3.38 0.97 0.82 203 Appendix B Face-to-Face Interview Questionnaire Guide Section A: Interviewee Background Background: Respondent name: Company name: Title/position: Complete address: Telephone number: Email: Interviewee biography: Interviewer name: Date of interview: Section B: Chore Questions Q1: Please comment on whether you generally ag ree or disagree with the Delphi research results and report recommendations. Q2: In your opinion, what results or recommendations are most significant? Please explain why. Q3: What do you see as the primary value of the results and recommendations of this study? 204 Q4: What issues related to effective leadership development would you want to know more about from this study or a follow-up study? Q5: The private sector, faced by an increasing competition, thrives to ensure maximum efficiency, profitability and growth. Hence the focus on recruiting the best top executives and best employees, and invest in their training. According to you, what would motivate the public sector to improve, be efficient, innovative and productive? Why and how far committed would the public sector recruit qualified leaders? Invest in further educating its employees? Invest in training and executive education? Q6: With the new regulations related to nati onalization quotas, lack of local talents and high number of expatriates in leadership positio ns, high unemployment rates in the Arab world, and a growing and young population, the Arab spring movement, in your views, how should the public sector respond to such demands? Q7: What role should the private sector play in alleviating the skills gap through company training programs? Should the government create incentives for companies to train their employees? Would you like to see the government and the privat e sector offering incentives for international training institutes to open in your country? If so, in what kind of training? 205 Appendix C Large Scale Survey Part A: Selected Items from the Delphi Survey were included in the Large Scale Survey Section 1. The methods of leadership training 1a. Training Activities Directions. Rate the effect of the followi ng leadership training activities on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect) 4 (some positive effect) 3 (no effect positive or negative) 2 (some negative effect) 1 (strong negative effect) Ł Case studies Ł Interacting with other participants Ł Collaborative problem solving of non-work problems, like building a plane. Ł Icebreaker activities Ł Interacting with the instructor Ł Inviting key speakers /practitioners from the business community Ł Use of simulation tools Ł Role playing exercises 206 For you as a participant, the mo st effective development sessi ons consist mainly of which of the following (Select one) Ł high quality presentations Ł high quality group activities such as discussion or simulations Ł an equal balance of high quality presentations and group activities 1b. Training Location Directions. Rate the effect of the following aspects of the training location on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect) 4 (some positive effect) 3 (no effect positive or negative) 2 (some negative effect) 1 (strong negative effect) Ł Large, well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotels Ł Outside the normal work environment Ł Facilities available to relax Ł Facilities with access to wire less network and library Ł Close by a commercial/entertainment area Ł Remote from any commercial/e ntertainment distractions 207 1c. Participants Directions. Rate the effect of the following qualities of the participants on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect) 4 (some positive effect) 3 (no effect positive or negative) 2 (some negative effect) 1 (strong negative effect) Ł Participants are from a range of differe nt countries (Arabs and Westerns ) Ł Participants are from a range of different business sectors Ł Participants are all Arabs Ł Participants are balanced between males and females Ł Participants are from the same gender as me 1d. Instructor Qualities Directions. Rate the effect of the foll owing instructor qualities on leadership development sessions a scale of 5 to 1, with fi ve being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect) 4 (some positive effect) 208 3 (no effect positive or negative) 2 (some negative effect) 1 (strong negative effect) Ł Instructor has experience as a business leader Ł Instructor is able to explain the m eaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, not just present it Ł Instructor is famous as a business leader Ł More opportunities for talk, and less reading material Ł Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience Ł Instruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture Ł Instructor is from the same country Ł Instructor is Arab Ł Instructor is Western Ł The instructor is from a well-known university Ł Instructor is the same gender as me 1e. Training Materials Directions. Rate the effect of the foll owing qualities of the training materials on leadership development sessions on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being a strong positive effect and one being a strong negative effect. 5 (strong positive effect) 4 (some positive effect) 209 3 (no effect positive or negative) 2 (some negative effect) 1 (strong negative effect) Ł Attractive hard copy materials Ł Materials illustrated with diagrams and graphics Ł Content with summary page Ł Materials accessible on the Web (v irtual learning environment) Ł Lecture handouts and readings saved on a flash disk Ł Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers Ł Materials provided in Arabic language Ł Notebook allowing an opportunity for writing individual reflections and practical ways to implement learning in the workplace Ł Pre-reading materials provided Section 2. The content of leadership development Directions. Rate the following qualities or abilities in terms of how important they are to develop among participants in lead ership development on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important. 5 (most important) 4 (important) 3 (somewhat important) 2 (not important) 210 1 (least important) Ł Ability to build and lead teams Ł Ability meet targets or goals Ł Problem solving ability Ł Ability to serve as a role model Ł Effective analysis of work situations Ł Effective management during periods of crisis Ł Charisma Ł Democratic decision-making processes Ł Presentation skills In your opinion, rate each of the following in terms of its importanc e to how individuals should become business leaders. 5 (most important) 4 (important) 3 (somewhat important) 2 (not important) 1 (least important) Ł Personality qualities Ł Family connections or in terpersonal connections Ł Job-related competencies 211 Section 3. Participants™ Motivation Directions. Rate the following factors in terms of how impor tant they are in motivating you to participate in leadership development on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important. 5 (most important) 4 (important) 3 (somewhat important) 2 (not important) 1 (least important) Ł Opportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices) Ł Desire to broaden horizon and see the big picture Ł Opportunity to network Ł Clarity of the objectives Ł Desire to go beyond just following orders Ł Relevance and quality of the program syllabus Ł Requirements of the organization Ł Practicality of the content offered Ł Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (personal development) Ł Extent to which training will contribute to participant™s company Ł Instructor from a Western country Ł Instructor from an Arab country Ł Instructor from a diffe rent Arab country 212 Section 4: Barriers to Participation Directions. Rate the following factors in terms of how importa nt they are as barriers to participating in leadership deve lopment on a scale of 5 to 1, with five being most important and one being least important. 5 (most important) 4 (important) 3 (somewhat important) 2 (not important) 1 (least important) Ł Timing of the program Ł Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training Ł The corporate culture Ł Perception about training Ł Too much content used in the training Ł Cultural hurdles for females Ł Location of the training too far away from home Ł Language of the program (Native Language) Ł Level of difficulty of the training (either above or below your level) Part B: Global Dimensions 213 Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle one answer in each line across): 1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance 01. Have sufficient time for your personal or home life 1 2 3 4 5 02. Have a boss (direct superior) you can respect 1 2 3 4 5 03. Get recognition for good performance 1 2 3 4 5 04. Have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5 05. Have pleasant people to work with 1 2 3 4 5 06. Do work that is interesting 1 2 3 4 5 214 07. Be consulted by your boss in decisions involving your work 1 2 3 4 5 08. Live in a desirable area 1 2 3 4 5 09. Have a job respected by your family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 10. Have chances for promotion 1 2 3 4 5 In your private life, how important is each of the following to you: (please circle one answer in each line across): 11. Keeping time free for fun 1 2 3 4 5 12. Moderation: having few desires 1 2 3 4 5 13. Being generous to other people 1 2 3 4 5 14. Modesty: looking small, not big 1 2 3 4 5 15. If there is something expensive you really want to buy but you do not have enough money, what do you do? 1. Always save before buying 2. Usually save first 215 3. Sometimes save, sometimes borrow to buy 4. Usually borrow and pay off later 5. Always buy now, pay off later 16. How often do you feel nervous or tense? 1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Seldom 5. Never 17. Are you a happy person? 1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Seldom 5. Never 18. Are you the same person at work (or at school if you™re a student) and at home? 1. Quite the same 2. Mostly the same 3. Don™t know 4. Mostly different 5. Quite different 216 19. Do other people or circumstances ev er prevent you from doing what you really want to? 1. Yes, always 2. Yes, usually 3. Sometimes 4. No, seldom 5. No, never 20. All in all, how would you describe your state of health these days? 1. Very good 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. Very poor 21. How important is religion in your life? 1. Of utmost importance 2. Very important 3. Of moderate importance 4. Of little importance 5. Of no importance 22. How proud are you to be a citizen of your country? 1. Not proud at all 2. Not very proud 217 3. Somewhat proud 4. Fairly proud 5. Very proud 23. How often, in your experience, are subordi nates afraid to contradict their boss (or students their teacher?) 1. Never 2. Seldom 3. Sometimes 4. Usually 5. Always To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle one answer in each line across): 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = undecided 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 24. One can be a good manager without having a precise answer to every question that a subordinate may raise about his or her work 1 2 3 4 5 25. Persistent efforts are the surest way to results 1 2 3 4 5 218 26. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all cost 1 2 3 4 5 27. A company or organizations rules shoul d not be broken - not even when the employee thinks breaking the rule would be in the organization™s best interest 1 2 3 4 5 28. We should honor our heroes from the past 1 2 3 4 5 Part C: Background Information Some information about yourself please: Are you: 1. Male 2. Female How old are you? 1. Under 20 2. 20-24 3. 25-29 4. 30-34 5. 35-39 6. 40-49 7. 50-59 8. 60 or over 219 What is your nationality? List 15 sample countries, and a space for Other What was your nationality at birth (if different)? List 15 sample countries, and a space for Other Education & Training For the following, identify what type of educational institution you attended. (1. Arabic curricular, 2. Western curricul ar, 3. Mix (Western and Arabic), 4. Other, NIA. Not Applicable) High school 1 2 3 4 NA Undergraduate (Bachelo r) 1 2 3 4 NA Graduate (Masters) 1 2 3 4 NA Doctoral (Ph.D.) 1 2 3 4 NA If you have or recently have had a paid job, what kind of job is it /was it? 1. No paid job (includes full-time students) 2. Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker 3. Generally trained office worker or secretary 4. Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, IT-specialist, nurse, artist or equivalent 5. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people) 6. Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers) 7. Manager of one or more managers 220 Which sector do you currently work in? 1. The public sector 2. The private sector 3. Non-governmental organization (NGO) 4. Other Which industry do you work in? 1. Financial Services 2. Entertainment and Media 3. Healthcare 4. Travel and Tourism 5. Information and Communica tion Technologies (ICTs) 6. Retail and Consumer Goods 7. Transport 8. Logistics & Storage 9. Energy 10. Utilities 11. Mining 12. Real Estate What country to do you currently work in? (List all 17 countries. Have respondent select one) 221 Is the company you work for Arab or foreign owned? 1. Arab 2. Foreign Thank you very much for your time. We know you are extremely busy! Your feedback will remain anonymous and will be tremendously he lpful to us as we continue revising and improving our methodology to better customize education and meet your specific needs. 222 Appendix D Comparing Executives™ and Experts™ Scores Table 20: Comparing Executives and Experts for Learning Activities (LA) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (2) Interacting with other participants 4.25 4.38 9826.5 (5) Interacting with the instructor 4.24 4.29 9630.5 (1) Case studies 4.23 4.63 8019 (8) Role playing exercises 4.23 4.29 9970.5 (3) Collaborative problem solving of non-work problems, like building a plane. 4.21 4.37 9209 (24) More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 4.17 4.29 9181 (4) Icebreaker activities 4.14 4.33 8965 * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Table 21: Comparing Executives and Experts for Leadership Competencies (LC) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (41) Ability to build and lead teams 4.44 4.71 8539 (49) Presentation skills 4.38 4.33 8948 (50) Personality qualities 4.36 4.46 9863.5 223 Table 21 (cont™d) (48) Democratic decision-making processes 4.32 4.29 9411 (42) Ability meet ta rgets or goals 4.31 4.67 7984 (43) Problem solving ability 4.3 4.67 7892* (47) Charisma 4.24 4.33 10004 (46) Effective management during periods of crisis 4.23 4.63 7861.5* (44) Ability to serve as a role model 4.19 4.63 7690.5* (45) Effective analysis of work situations 4.16 4.63 7192.5* * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Table 22: Comparing Executives and Experts for Motivational Enablers (ME) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (54) Desire to broaden horizon and see the big picture 4.31 4.42 9974 (53) Opportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices) 4.3 4.46 9807.5 (61) Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (personal development) 4.24 4.33 9860 (55) Opportunity to network 4.23 4.42 9534 (56) Clarity of the objectives 4.23 4.42 9370 (60) Practicality of the content offered 4.22 4.37 9835.5 (58) Relevance and quality of the programme syllabus 4.21 4.37 9496.5 (62) Extent to which training will contribute to participant s company 4.2 4.38 9568.5 224 Table 22 (cont™d) (59) Requirements of the organization 4.19 4.38 9538.5 (57) Desire to go beyond just following orders 4.12 4.38 8743.5 * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Table 23: Comparing Executives and Experts for Barriers to Participation (BP) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (67) Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 4.57 3.92 5537** (66) Timing of the programme 4.35 4.58 9008 (68) The corporate culture 4.11 3.79 7444.5* (69) Perception about training 4.1 3.75 7337* (70) Too much content used in the training 3.98 3.71 7930 (71) Cultural hurdles for females 3.76 3.38 7290* * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 225 Table 24: Comparing Executives and Experts for Learning Environment (LE) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (10) Large, well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotel 4.19 4.46 9015 (11) Outside the normal work environment 4.15 4.33 9386 (12) Facilities available to relax 4.05 3.71 7587.5* * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 Table 25: Comparing Executives and Experts for Instructor Characteristics (IC) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, 4.34 4.5 9468 (21) Instructor has experience as a business leader 4.32 4.54 9257.5 (25) Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 4.17 4.33 9612 (23) Instructor is famous as a business leader 4.12 4.42 8779 * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 226 Table 26: Comparing Executives and Experts for Homogeneity (HO) LSS Item Description Executive Mean Expert Mean Mann Whitney U Statistic (26) Instruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture 3.94 3.58 7390* (28) Instructor is Arab 3.79 3.13 6033** (65) Instructor from a di fferent Arab country 3.71 2.96 5045** (27) Instructor is from the same country 3.7 3.17 6376** * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 227 Appendix E Tables Comparing Executives Across Regions Table 27: Mann Whitney U Results for Region Item Number and Description MENA Gulf MENA Levant MEAN DIFF (Levant - Gulf) Construct (50) Personality qualities 4.16 4.51 0.35** LC (1) Case studies 4.05 4.36 0.31** LA (2) Interacting with other participants 4.07 4.38 0.31** LA (35) Materials accessible on the Web (virtual learning environment) 3.94 4.24 0.3** LE (41) Ability to build and lead teams 4.26 4.56 0.3** LC (53) Opportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices) 4.13 4.43 0.3** ME (48) Democratic decision-making processes 4.16 4.44 0.28** LC (21) Instructor has experience as a business leader 4.16 4.44 0.28** IC (66) Timing of the programme 4.2 4.46 0.26** BP (3) Collaborative problem solving of non-work problems, like building a plane. 4.06 4.31 0.25** LA (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, 4.2 4.45 0.25** IC (30) The instructor is from a well-known university 4 4.25 0.25** IC (51) Family connections or interpersonal connections 3.91 4.15 0.24** HO (18) Participants are all Arabs 3.56 3.8 0.24** HO 228 Table 27 (cont™d) (54) Desire to broaden horizon and see the big picture 4.18 4.41 0.23** ME (60) Practicality of the content offered 4.09 4.32 0.23** ME (42) Ability meet targ ets or goals 4.18 4.4 0.22** LC (56) Clarity of the objectives 4.1 4.32 0.22** ME (6) Inviting key speakers /practitioners from the business community 4.04 4.26 0.22** LA (43) Problem solving ability 4.17 4.39 0.22** LC (13) Facilities with access to wireless network and library 3.88 4.1 0.22** LE (5) Interacting with the instructor 4.12 4.33 0.21** LA (49) Presentation skills 4.26 4.47 0.21** LC (52) Job-related competencies 4.3 4.51 0.21** LC (47) Charisma 4.13 4.32 0.19** LC (11) Outside the normal work environment 4.04 4.23 0.19** LE (34) Content with summary page 4.18 4.37 0.19** LE (74) Level of difficulty of the training (either above or below your level) 3.65 3.84 0.19** BP (10) Large, well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotel 4.08 4.27 0.19** LE (33) Materials illustrated with diagrams and graphics 4.15 4.34 0.19** LE (68) The corporate culture 4.01 4.19 0.18** BP (4) Icebreaker activities 4.04 4.21 0.17** LA (59) Requirements of the organization 4.1 4.26 0.16* ME (40) Pre-reading mate rials provided 4.18 4.34 0.16* LE 229 Table 27 (cont™d) (38) Materials provided in Arabic language 3.8 3.96 0.16* HO (8) Role playing exercises 4.14 4.29 0.15* LA (44) Ability to serve as a role model 4.1 4.25 0.15* LC (69) Perception about training 4.01 4.16 0.15* BP (31) Instructor is the same gender as me 3.9 4.03 0.13* HO (55) Opportunity to network 4.16 4.29 0.13* ME (71) Cultural hurdles for females 3.69 3.82 0.13 BP (23) Instructor is famous as a business leader 4.05 4.18 0.13* IC (27) Instructor is from the same country 3.63 3.76 0.13* HO (25) Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 4.1 4.22 0.12 IC (7) Use of simulation tools 4.12 4.23 0.11* LA (65) Instructor from a di fferent Arab country3.65 3.76 0.11 HO (36) Lecture handouts and readings saved on a flash disk 3.99 4.1 0.11 LE (45) Effective analysis of work situations 4.1 4.2 0.1 LC (24) More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 4.11 4.21 0.1 LA (46) Effective management during periods of crisis 4.18 4.27 0.09 LC (28) Instructor is Arab 3.74 3.83 0.09 HO (37) Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers 3.93 4.02 0.09 LE (61) Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (personal development) 4.2 4.28 0.08 ME (12) Facilities available to relax 4.01 4.09 0.08 LE 230 Table 27 (cont™d) (20) Participants are from the same gender as me 3.79 3.87 0.08 HO (39) Notebook allowing an opportunity for writing individual reflections and practical ways to implement 3.7 3.78 0.08 LE (57) Desire to go beyond just following orders 4.08 4.15 0.07 ME (26) Instruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture 3.9 3.97 0.07 HO (67) Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 4.55 4.6 0.05 BP (70) Too much content used in the training 3.95 4 0.05 BP (72) Location of the training too far away from home 3.97 4.02 0.05 BP (58) Relevance and quality of the programme syllabus 4.18 4.22 0.04 ME (62) Extent to which training will contribute to participant™s company 4.18 4.22 0.04 ME (73) Language of the program (Native Language) 3.86 3.85 -0.01 HO * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 231 Appendix F Comparing Experts Across Educational Backgrounds Table 28: Selected Mann Whitney U Results for Education Backgrounds Item Number and Description Arab HS Non-Full Arab HS MEAN DIFF (Non-Full - Arab) Construct (25) Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 4.12 4.41 0.29** IC (55) Opportunity to network 4.19 4.46 0.27** ME (10) Large, well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotel 4.15 4.41 0.26** LE (13) Facilities with access to wireless network and library 3.97 4.22 0.25** LE (24) More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 4.13 4.37 0.24** LA (61) Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (personal development) 4.21 4.44 0.23** ME (70) Too much content used in the training 3.94 4.17 0.23* BP (40) Pre-reading mate rials provided 4.24 4.47 0.23** LE (46) Effective management during periods of crisis 4.2 4.42 0.22** LC (58) Relevance and quality of the programme syllabus 4.17 4.39 0.22** ME (68) The corporate culture 4.08 4.3 0.22** BP (37) Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers 3.95 4.17 0.22* LE 232 Table 28 (cont™d) (30) The instructor is from a well-known university 4.11 4.33 0.22** IC (6) Inviting key speakers /practitioners from the business community 4.13 4.34 0.21* LA (56) Clarity of the objectives 4.2 4.41 0.21** ME (4) Icebreaker activities 4.1 4.3 0.2** LA (1) Case studies 4.2 4.39 0.19* LA (35) Materials accessible on the Web (virtual learning environment) 4.08 4.27 0.19* LE (45) Effective analysis of work situations 4.13 4.31 0.18* LC (60) Practicality of the content offered 4.2 4.38 0.18* ME (23) Instructor is famous as a business leader 4.09 4.27 0.18* IC (43) Problem solving ability 4.27 4.44 0.17* LC (7) Use of simulation tools 4.16 4.33 0.17* LA (44) Ability to serve as a role model 4.16 4.33 0.17* LC (57) Desire to go beyond just following orders 4.09 4.26 0.17* ME (62) Extent to which training will contribute to participant s company 4.18 4.35 0.17* ME (12) Facilities available to relax 4.03 4.19 0.16* LE (34) Content with summary page 4.26 4.42 0.16* LE (2) Interacting with other participants 4.23 4.39 0.16* LA (49) Presentation skills 4.36 4.51 0.15* LC (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, 4.32 4.47 0.15* IC 233 Table 28 (cont™d) (71) Cultural hurdles for females 3.74 3.88 0.14* BP (8) Role playing exercises 4.21 4.32 0.11* LA (67) Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 4.58 4.57 -0.01 BP (73) Language of the program (Native Language) 3.86 3.81 -0.05 HO (26) Instruction is attuned to the Arab culture, not Western culture 3.95 3.89 -0.06 HO (27) Instructor is from the same country 3.71 3.64 -0.07 HO (31) Instructor is the same gender as me 3.99 3.91 -0.08 HO (51) Family connections or interpersonal connections 4.07 3.93 -0.14 HO (65) Instructor from a different Arab country 3.76 3.46 -0.3* HO (28) Instructor is Arab 3.84 3.53 -0.31** HO (18) Participants are all Arabs 3.77 3.34 -0.43** HO (38) Materials provided in Arabic language 3.97 3.49 -0.48** HO * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 234 Appendix G Comparing Executives Across Sectors Table 29: Selected Mann Whitney U Results for Sector Item Number and Description Public/N GO Private MEAN DIFF (Private - Public/NGO) Construct (53) Opportunity to realign (refresh thinking with timely best practices) 4.05 4.35 0.3** ME (34) Content with summary page 4.04 4.34 0.3** LE (2) Interacting with other participants 4.03 4.3 0.27** LA (43) Problem solving ability 4.07 4.34 0.27** LC (41) Ability to build and lead teams 4.22 4.48 0.26** LC (40) Pre-reading mate rials provided 4.06 4.32 0.26** LE (42) Ability meet targ ets or goals 4.09 4.35 0.26** LC (60) Practicality of the content offered 4.01 4.27 0.26** ME (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, 4.13 4.39 0.26** IC (4) Icebreaker activities 3.93 4.18 0.25** LA (7) Use of simulation tools 3.99 4.22 0.23** LA (46) Effective management during periods of crisis 4.04 4.27 0.23* LC (55) Opportunity to network 4.04 4.27 0.23** ME (61) Need to update or learn new skills or competencies (personal development) 4.06 4.28 0.22** ME (68) The corporate culture 3.93 4.15 0.22* BP 235 Table 29 (cont™d) (1) Case studies 4.05 4.27 0.22** LA (10) Large, well-equipped place like university or high end comfortable training rooms such as in hotel 4 4.22 0.22* LE (56) Clarity of the objectives 4.06 4.27 0.21* ME (59) Requirements of the organization 4.01 4.22 0.21* ME (25) Instructor is a good facilitator and works well with the audience 3.99 4.2 0.21* IC (6) Inviting key speakers /practitioners from the business community 4 4.2 0.2* LA (45) Effective analysis of work situations 3.99 4.19 0.2* LC (66) Timing of the programme 4.18 4.38 0.2** BP (33) Materials illustrated with diagrams and graphics 4.09 4.29 0.2** LE (69) Perception about training 3.93 4.13 0.2* BP (11) Outside the normal work environment 3.98 4.18 0.2* LE (12) Facilities available to relax 3.89 4.09 0.2* LE (5) Interacting with the instructor 4.08 4.27 0.19* LA (8) Role playing exercises 4.07 4.26 0.19* LA (48) Democratic decision-making processes4.16 4.35 0.19* LC (3) Collaborative problem solving of non-work problems, like building a plane. 4.06 4.24 0.18* LA (62) Extent to which training will contribute to participant s company 4.05 4.23 0.18* ME (47) Charisma 4.09 4.27 0.18* LC (21) Instructor has experience as a business leader 4.17 4.35 0.18** IC 236 Table 29 (cont™d) (24) More opportunities for talk, and less reading material 4.03 4.2 0.17* LA (54) Desire to broaden horizon and see the big picture 4.17 4.34 0.17* ME (50) Personality qualities 4.25 4.39 0.14* LC (37) Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers 3.99 3.98 -0.01 LE (20) Participants are from the same gender as me 3.89 3.83 -0.06 HO (73) Language of the program (Native Language) 3.91 3.84 -0.07 HO (27) Instructor is from the same country 3.77 3.69 -0.08 HO (28) Instructor is Arab 3.87 3.78 -0.09 HO (52) Job-related competencies 4.5 4.4 -0.1* LC (65) Instructor from a different Arab country 3.83 3.69 -0.14 HO (31) Instructor is the same gender as me 4.11 3.95 -0.16 HO (74) Level of difficulty of the training (either above or below your level) 3.9 3.73 -0.17 BP (71) Cultural hurdles for females 3.96 3.73 -0.23 BP (51) Family connections or interpersonal connections 4.25 4.01 -0.24 HO * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 237 Appendix H Comparing Executives Across Age Groups Table 30: Kruskal-Wallis H Statistically Significant Results for Age Item Number and Description Millennials Generation X Veterans Chi- Square Statistic Asymp . Sig. Construct (52) Job-related competencies 4.34 4.41 4.7 19.84** <0.00 1 LC (37) Book relevant to current best practices and written by experts/ top thinkers 4.02 4.02 3.67 9.52** 0.009 LE (35) Materials accessible on the Web (virtual learning environment) 4.13 4.17 3.74 8.17* 0.017 LE * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 238 Appendix I Comparing Executives Across Gender Table 31: Mann Whitney U Statistically Significant Results for Gender Item Number and Description Male Female MEAN DIFF (Female - Male) Construct (28) Instructor is Arab 3.75 4.08 0.33** HO (51) Family connections or interpersonal connections 4.01 4.32 0.31** HO (71) Cultural hurdles for females 3.73 4.01 0.28* BP (11) Outside the normal work environment 4.11 4.37 0.26** LE (65) Instructor from a different Arab country 3.68 3.91 0.23* HO (34) Content with summary page 4.26 4.47 0.21* LE (27) Instructor is from the same country 3.67 3.88 0.21* HO (2) Interacting with other participants 4.23 4.41 0.18* LA (7) Use of simulation tools 4.16 4.34 0.18* LA (22) Instructor is able to explain the meaning and illustration of the content, and use real examples, 4.32 4.48 0.16* IC (20) Participants are from the same gender as me 3.82 3.97 0.15* HO (67) Poor reputation of the companies who conduct the training 4.56 4.69 0.13* BP * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 239 Appendix J HLM Methodology To examine the clustered data using the HLM, I first detected the extent of clustering by running an unconditional model (Table 32), whic h only includes the dependent variable. No predictors are added. Clustering is present if the level-two variance component is statistically significant. As illustrated in Table 33 under th e unconditional model, the level-two variance components are statistically significant (e.g., for LA 0.01801 with p < 0.001) across all six dependent variables; thus, clustering will be a ccounted for in the computations, using an HLM modeling approach. The simplest form of an HLM is composed of two levels, a within- and a between-unit model. The outcome variable for individual i in nation j is a function of the error for both levels, which are accounted for in the model. The fo llowing formula represents the unconditional model, showing that the outcome variable is th e sum of the intercept, the level two error for group j and individual error for person i in group j. The variances of the aforementioned errors are referred to as the variance components, and they are used to calculate the intraclass correlation (ICC). The variance component of all individual errors rij is denoted as ² and 00 is the variance component of the group/nation errors (uoj). The variance components are also used to ca lculate the ICC, which is the degree of data dependence or the proportion of variation in the outcome that ex ists between groups (nations). Calculating the intra-class correl ation (ICC) shows the amount of variability between countries (second level), versus the amount of variability among individuals (first level). For learning activities, 4.1% of the total variance is between countries. The within nationalities (or between 240 individuals) variance accounts for 95.9% of the total variance in learning activities. Thus, the majority of the variation is between individuals. Table 32: Variance Components Unconditional Model HLM Model (mixed/after adding the 9 independent variables) Dependent Variable 00 2 ICC 00 2 ICC Learning Activities 0.01801** 0.42161 4.10% 0.00003 0.34497 0.01% Leadership Competencies 0.02053** 0.36735 5.29% 0.0036 0.30464 1.17% Motivational Enablers 0.02295** 0.49075 4.47% 0.00212 0.41255 0.51% Barriers to Participation 0.01992** 0.43681 4.36% 0.00032 0.32654 0.10% Learning Environment 0.01272** 0.40131 3.07% 0.00118 0.27749 0.42% Instructor's Characteristics 0.02231** 0.44583 4.77% 0.00033 0.32094 0.10% * p-value < .05 ** p-value < .01 The nine independent variables were then added to the unconditional model. The categorical variables were dummy coded, and the continuous variables were grand mean centered (details on how variables were coded are discussed later in this chapter). As shown in Table 31 under the HLM model, the addition of the independent variable to the model reduces 241 the variance components or unexplained vari ance (e.g., for LA from 0.01801 to 0.00003) as a result of the predictive relations hip between the independent variable and dependent variable. When comparing the HLM model variance components with the unconditional model variance components, we are also able to determine how much unexplained variance was reduced due to the independent variable (see Table 33). In our HLM mo del, the unexplained level-two variance in the learning activities construct was reduced by 99.7% and unexplained level-one variance was reduced by 18.2%. Table 33: Unexplained Variance Reduction by Independent Variable Dependent Variable Level 2 Variance Reduced Overall Level 1 Variance Reduced Overall Learning Activities 99.7% 18.2% Leadership Competencies 82.8% 17.1% Motivational Enablers 90.8% 15.9% Barriers to Participation 98.3% 25.2% Learning Environment 90.3% 30.9% Instructor's Characteristics 98.2% 28.0% The mixed model is as follows: CONSTRUCTij = 00 + 01*REGIONj + 02*PDIj + 03*UAIj + 10*MILLENIALSij + 20*VETERANSij + 30*EDBACKGRij + 40*GENDER ij + 50*SECTORij + 60*AVEHOMOGij + u0j+ rij Table 34 shows 00, which represents the intercept and reflects the average score for an individual who belongs to the reference group (a male, between the age of 35 and 49 [Generation X], from the Gulf, with a fully Arab e ducation background who works in the public/NGO 242 sector). The reference group is usually a group of individuals who are expected to score lowest on their HLM dummy coded variables among the population being studied. In this model, I chose a male, public sector, born in the Gulf, fr om Gen X to constitute the reference group. As for the continuous variables, the reference grou p is usually chosen based on the grand mean centered (PDI, UAI, and Homogeneity). Based on the reference group, the following codes were included in the model: Gulf = 0 and Levant = 1. Public Sector/NGO = 0 and Private Sector = 1. Male = 0 and Female = 1. Full Arabic Education = 0 and Western/Mixed Curricula = 1. Both Millennials and Veterans/Boomers were coded 1 and compared separately to Gen X, which was coded 0. The HLM model requires randomly assigned codes (zero or one) when computing differences between three groups. As PDI and UAI were continuous variables ranging from 0-100, their grand mean averages were set at PDI = 37.91 and UAI = 21.9. HO, a continuous variable, was also grand mean centered at 3.85. For example, the value of the learning activ ities intercept is 3.87 and represents the estimated learning activities sc ore (which is an average score) for the reference group. Table 34: Intercept Values Construct Constant 00 Std Error Learning Activities 3.87** 0.058 Leadership Competencies 3.99** 0.06 Motivational Enablers 3.91** 0.066 243 Table 34 (cont™d) Barriers to Participation 3.9** 0.056 Learning Environment 3.84** 0.05 Instructor Characteristics 3.92** 0.056 ** p-value < .01 The other s are a function of various students™ background characteristics (region, PDI, UAI, Millennials, Veterans, education background, gender, sector and homogeneity). They indicate the predicted difference in dependent variables due to an increase or decrease of the IV by one unit. As with major general linear models, the HLM needs to meet the linearity assumption as well as some other assumptions specific to the hi erarchical nature of the nested design. The HLM of this study meets the assumptions of linearity, normality (with the exception of five outliers, which will be discussed), homoscedasticity (hom ogeneity of variance at both levels), and independence of observations (based on how the participants were selected and included in the sample). I established a cutoff point for potential outliers at a standardized residual greater than 3.5; this resulted in five potential outliers for the dependent variable barriers to participation. I reran the analysis without the potential outliers; changes in estimate values were minimal and statistical significance results rema ined the same. Thus, I continue to use and discuss the original analysis, which includes these five potential outliers. 244 REFERENCES 245 REFERENCES Abdalla, I. A., & Al-Homoud, M. A. (2001). Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian Gulf states. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 , 506Œ531. Abdel Bary, S. (2007) Characteristics of Arab learners. Retrieved from http://www.checkpoint- elearning.com/article/4743.html Abramson, N. R., Keating, R. J., & Lane, H. W. (1996). Cross-national cognitive process differences: A comparison of Canadia n, American and Japanese managers. Management International Review, 36(2), 123-147. Adecco. (2013). Managing the modern workforce. Adecco Group: Unlocking Britain™s potential . Retrieved from http://www.adeccogroupuk.c o.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Adecco- Group-Workplace-Revolution.pdf Afiouni, F., Ruël, H., & Schuler, R. (2014). HRM in the Middle East: Toward a greater understanding. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 133-143. Ahmad, K., & Ogunsola, O. K. (2011). An empirical assessment of Islamic leadership principles. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(3), 291-318. Al Maaitah, R., Oweis, A., Olimat, H., Altara wneh, I., & Al Maaitah, H. (2012). Barriers hindering Jordanian women™s advancement to higher political and leadership positions. Journal of International Women's Studies, 13(5), 101-122. Al Suwaidan, T.B.M. (2002). Sena'at al kaed (The making of a leader). Kuwait: Innovation Group. Al-Barwani T. & Kelly, E. F. (1985). Factors influencing the recruitment and retention of literacy learners in Oman. International Review of Education, 31(2), 145-154. 10.1007/BF02262573 Al-Dabbagh, M., & Assaad, C. (2010). Taking stock and looking forward: Leadership development in the Arab world. Prepared for Appreciating and Advancing Leadership for Public Wellbeing . A workshop sponsored by NYU Abu Dhabi Institute. Retrieved from http://wagner.nyu.edu/files/leadership/LeadershipDevelopmentProgramsArabWorld.pdf Al-Harthi, A. S. (2005). Distan ce higher education experiences of Arab Gulf students in the United States: A cultural perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(3). Al-Harthi, A. S. (2010). Learner self-regulati on in distance education: A cross-cultural study. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 135-150. 246 Al-Husan, F. B., Al-Hussan, F. B., & Perkins, S. J. (2014). Multilevel HRM systems and intermediating variables in MNCs: Longitudinal case study research in Middle Eastern settings. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 234-251. Al-Sayyed, N. M. (2014). Critical factors affecting human resource development in the Arab world. Life Science Journal, 11(4), 113-123. Al-Yahya, K. O. (2007). The over-educated, under-utilized public manager: Why doesn™t human capital development br ing desired outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings. Ali, A. J. (1992). Management research themes and teaching in the Arab world. International Journal of Educational Management , 6(4). 11-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549210014682 Ali, A. J. (1993). Decision-making style, indivi dualism, and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives. International Studies of Management & Organization 23(3), 53-73. Ali, A. J. (1996). Organizational development in the Arab world. Journal of Management Development, 15 (5), 4-21. Ali, A. J. (2010). Islamic challenges to HR in modern organizations. Personnel Review, 39(6), 692-711. Ali, A. J., Azim, A. A., & Krishnan, K. S. (1995). Expatriates and host country nationals: Managerial values and decision styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(6), 27-34. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/01437739510092252 Ali, A. J., Krishnan, K., & Camp, R. C. (2006) . A cross cultural perspective on individualism and collectivism orientations. Journal of Transnational Management, 11(1), 3Œ16. http://doi.org/10.1300/J482v11n01_02 Ali, A. J., & Al-Owaihan, A. (2008). Islamic work ethic: a critical review. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 5-19. Ali, A. J., & Camp, R. C. (1995). Teaching management in the Arab world: Confronting illusions. International Journal of Educational Management, 9(2), 10-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549510082332 Ali, A. J., & Wahabi, R. (1995). Managerial value systems in Morocco. International Studies of Management & Organization, 87-96. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40397311 Allen, K., & Walker, A. (2000). Qualitative rese arch. In C. Hendrick & S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 19-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 247 AlSarhi, N. Z., Salleh, L. M., Mohamed, Z. A ., & Amini, A. A. (2014). The West and Islam perspective of leadership. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 18, 42-56. American Management Association. (2005). Leading into the future: A global study of leadership 2005-2015. New York: Author. American Productivity and Quality Center. (2006). Leadership development strategy: Linking strategy, collaborative learning, and individual leaders. Houston, TX: Author. Armour, S. (2005). Generation Y: They™ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA Today, 6, 2005. The Associated Press. (2015, May 19). Funding shortfalls for Syrian refugees in 5 host countries. ABC News Online. Retrieved from http://abcnews .go.com/International/wireStory/ funding-shortfalls-syrian-refugees-host-countries-31140113 Atiyyah, H. (1993). Roots of organization and management problems in Arab countries. In Proceedings of the Arab management conference, Bradford . Aydin, S., & Pehlivan, A. (2010). The metaphors that Turkish teacher candidates use concerning fiteacherfl and fistudentfl concepts. International Periodical fo r the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(3), 818-842. Aycan, Z., Al-Hamadi, A. B., Davis, A., & Budhwar, P. (2007). Cultural orientations and preferences for HRM policies and practices: The case of Oman. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (1), 11Œ32 Bakhtari, H. (1995). Cultural effects on management style: a co mparative study of American and Middle Eastern management styles. International Studies of Management & Organization, 25(3), 97-118. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International Business Studies , 845-864. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/155497 Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionalŒtransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130 Bealer, D., & Bhanugopan, R. (2014). Transactional and transformational leadership behaviour of expatriate and national managers in th e UAE: A crosscultural comparative analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 293-316. Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A handbook of best practices for education and trainers (2nd ed). London: Kogan Page Ltd. 248 Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2013). Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Beder, H. (1990). Learning, literacy and participation. Adult Education Quarterly, 43 , 29-38. Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. (1999). Leadership: An Islamic perspective. Beltsville, MD: Amana. Benedict, R. (1967). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Berdrow, I., & Evers, F. T. (2014). Competence: Basis for empl oyee effectiveness. In N.E. Chalofsky, T.S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 201-214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bergiel, E. B., Bergiel, B. J., & Upson, J. W. (2012). Revisiting Hofstede™s dimensions: Examining the cultural convergence of the United States and Japan. American Journal of Management, 12(1), 69Œ79. Berl, P. S. (2006). Crossing the generational divide. Exchange, 168, 73-76. Berry, J. W. (2006). Design of acculturation stud ies. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 129Œ141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol 1: Theory and method (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Beschel, R. P., Jr. (2010). A note from the publisher. Middle East and North Africa Governance News & Notes, 4(1), 1Œ2. Beteille, A. (1969). The decline of social inequality? In A. Beteille (Ed.), Social inequality: Selected readings (pp. 362-380). Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Bhawuk, D., & Triandis, H. (1996). The role of culture theory in the study of culture and intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (pp.17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bing, J. W. (2004). Hofstede's consequences: The impact of his work on consulting and business practice. Academy of Management Executive 18 (1): 80-87. Bittel, L. R. (1984). Leadership, the key to management success . New York: F. Watts. Blunt, P. (1991). Organizational culture and development. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2(1), 55- 71. doi: 10.1080/09585199100000051 249 Bond, M. H. (1992). The process of enhancing cross-cultural competence in Hong Kong organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16 (4), 395-412. Boshier, R. (1973). Educational participation and dropout: A theoretical model. Adult Education Quarterly, 23(4), 255-282. Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). An empirical study of the pluralism of learning and adaptive styles in an MBA program. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management: Management Education and Development Division, Toronto. Branine, M., & Pollard, D. (2010). Human res ource management with Islamic management principles. Personnel Review, 39 (6), 712-727. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Heteroge neity of variance in experimental studies: A challenge to conventional interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 104(3), 396-404. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.3.396 Buda, R., & Elsayed-Elkhouly, S. M. (1998). Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans: Individualism- collectivism revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29, 487-492. Burruss, W. J. (2001). Adult learning environmen ts: The relationship of light and color in the ambient environment. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 49(3), 28-33. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455. Carp, A., Petersen, R., & Roelfs, P. (1973). Learning interests and experiences of adult Americans. Berkley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Chaaban, J. (2010). Job creation in the Arab economies: Navigating through difficult waters. Arab Human Development Report Research Paper Series . New York: United Nations Development Program. Cherian, J., & Farouq, S. (2013). Does effective l eadership style drive financial performance of banks? Analysis in the context of UAE banking sector. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 5(7). Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment in struments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 250 Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating across cultures: Communication obstacles in international diplomacy (Revised Edition). United Stat es Institute of Peace Press. Common, R. K. (2011). Barriers to developing leadership in the sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6 (2), 215Œ228. Coloma, J., Gibson, C., Packard, T. (2012). Participant outcomes of a leadership development initiative in eight human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 36, 4-22. Collins, J. (2006). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Managing Innovation and Change, 234-248. Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ke tchen, D. (2006). How much do high -performance work practices matter? A meta -analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology , 59(3), 501-528. Cook, B. (1999). Islamic versus west concep tions of education: Reflections on Egypt. International Review of Education, 45(3/4), 339-357. Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1986). Getting the best from foreign employees. Management Review, 75(6), 19-26. Culpin, V., & Scott, H. (2012). The effectiveness of a live case study approach: Increasing knowledge and understanding of ‚hard™ versus ‚soft™ skills in executive education. Management Learning, 43(5). doi: 1350507611431530. Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Boston: Harcourt College Pub. Dalkey, N. C., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. DeGagne, M. D., & Dirkx, J. M. (2009). Success without assimilation: First nations adult learners in the postsecondary environment. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 97-102) . San Francisco: San Francisco State University. DeVault, M. (1997). Conflict and deference. In C. Counihan & P. Van Esterik (Eds.), Food and culture: A reader (pp.180-199). New York: Routledge Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Simon and Schuster. Doi, T. (1979). Amae no Kozo. Tokyo: Kobundo. 251 Domberg, S., & Winters, S. (1993). Learning styles and needs of adult learner: The art & science of entrepreneurship education, Berea, Ohio. The Project for Excellence in Entrepreneurship Education . Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world™s top companies are re-creating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dubrin, A., & Dalglish, C. L. (2003). Leadership, an Australasian focus. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Dugdale, S. (2009). Space strategies for the new learning landscape. Educause Review, 44 (2), 51-63. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. Duyar, I., Aydin, I., and Pehlivan, Z. (2010), Analyzing principal influence tactics from a cross- cultural perspective: Do preferred influence tactics and targeted goals differ by national culture? International Perspectives on Education and Society , 11, 191Œ220. Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 15(2), 210-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0048 Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505-510. Elsayed-Ekjiouly, S. M., & Buda, R. (1996). Organizational conflict: A comparative analysis of conflict styles across cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management , 7(1), 71- 81. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Cons truct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179-197. Enterprise Surveys. (2015). The World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.enterprisesurveys.org Ernst & Young. (2013). Younger managers rise in the ranks: EY study on generational shifts in the US workplace. Retreived from http://www.ey.com/US/en/Issues/Talent- management/Talent-Survey-The-g enerational-management-shift Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: L earning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286Œ90. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674Œ781. 252 Felder, R. M., & Solomon, B. A. (1999). Inde x of learning styles. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/us ers/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html Felder, R. M., & Solomon, B. A. (2000) . Learning styles and strategies. North Carolina State University, Resources in Science and Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of e xperiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(4), 243-272. Fenwick, T. J. (2001). Experiential learning: A theoretical critique from five perspectives. Information Series No. 385. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED454418 Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston. IL: Row, Peterson. Fitzpatrick, B., & Collins-Sussman, B. (2012). Team geek: A software developer's guide to working well with others. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. Frankel, J. (2012). The natural resource curse: a survey. In Shaffer, B. & Ziyadov, T. (Eds.), Beyond the resource curse. (pp. 17-57). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theo ry of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693-727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001 Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedill o, M. (2005). Spiritual leadersh ip and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 835- 862. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.012 Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Gallay, R., & Hunter, R. V. (1979). Why adults are pursuing a part-time college education. Collegiate News and Views, 32(2), 13-16. Gardner, A. (2010). City of strangers: Gulf migration and the Indian community in Bahrain . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gee, L. (2006). Human-centered design gui delines. In Oblinger, D. G., (Ed.), Learning spaces, (10.1-10.13). Retrieved from http://net.e ducause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf Ghauri, P. N. (2003). A framework for internationa l business negotiations. In P. N. Ghauri, J. C. Usunier (Eds.), International business negotiations (2nd ed., pp. 3Œ22). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. 253 Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. People and Strategy, 29(4), 32-37. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http ://search.proquest.com/docview/224379580?accoun tid=12598 Gillespie, K., & Riddle, L. (2005). Case-based teach ing in business education in the Arab Middle East and North Africa. In I. Alon & J. R. McIntyre (Eds.), Business education and emerging market economies: Perspectives and best practices (pp. 141-155). New York: Springer. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomsen. Gonzalez, G., Karoly, L. A., Constant, L., Salem, H., & Goldman, C. A. (2008). Facing human capital challenges of the 21st century: Education and labor market initiatives in Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Guay, R. P. (2011). Igniting the fire between leaders and followers: The impact of having the right fit. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Iowa Research Online. Hackman, J. R.; Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16(2): 250Œ279. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7. OCLC 4925746330. Hagedorn, L. S. Graduate retention. Conference paper, 1993. (ED 365 181) Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture . New York: Doubleday. Hecht, M. L., DeVito, J. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1999). Perspectives on nonverbal communication. The Nonverbal Communication Reader: 3-18. Heffernan, T., Morrison, M., Basu, P., & Sweeney, A. (2010). Cultural differences, learning styles and transnational education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 27-39. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz , J. (2002). What's wro ng with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82(6), 903-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903 Hengstler, D. D., Haas, W. H., & Lovacchini, E. V. (1984). Andragogy in public universities: Understanding adult education needs in the 1980s. Asheville, NC: University of North Carolina. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: Inte rnational differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 254 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., & Minkov M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions an independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 15(4), 417-433. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., & Vinken, H. (2008). Announcing a new version of the Values Survey Module: The VSM 08. Retrieved from http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/VSM08.html Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill USA. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316. Holden, C. (2010). Learning with style. Science, 327(5962), 129. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Learning_With_Style-Science.pdf Hole, D. (2010). Talking about whose generation? In The Talent Paradox: A 21st century talent and leadership agenda (pp. 98-107). Deloitte University Press. Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Holtbrügge, D., & Mohr, A. T. (2010). Cultural determinants of learning style preferences. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 622-637. Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Houle, C. O. (1988). The inquiring mind (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. House R. J. et al. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (No. TR-75-67). Technical Report Prepared for Office of Naval Research and University of Washington. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec ord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA00951 3. 255 Hrivnak, G. A., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2009). A framework for leadership development. In S. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 456Œ475). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hsu, F. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Tavistock Publications. Huntington, S. P. (1971). The change to change: Modernization, development, and politics. Comparative politics, 3(3), 283-322. Huffman, M., & Cohen, P. (2004). Occupational se gregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: National versus local labor markets. Sociological Forum, 19 (1), 121-147. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1954). National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol.2: Special fields and applications (pp. 977-1020). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Iqbal, Z. (2014). The Arab awakening: Determinants and economic consequences. Middle East Institute Policy Focus Series. Washington, DC: Middle East Institute. Retrieved from http://www.mei.edu/content/arab-awakeni ng-determinants-and-economic-consequences Isaac, E. P., Guy, T. C., & Valentine, T. (2001). Understanding African American learners' motivations to learn in church-based adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 52 (1), 23-38. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.349 Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264-277. doi: 10.1177/0022022104272905 Johnstone, J. W. C., & Rivera, R. J. (1965). Volunteers for learning: A study of the educational pursuits of adults. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 35(3), 392-414. Retrieved from http://amr.aom.org/content/35/3/392.short Jreisat, J. E. (2009a). Administrati on, globalization and the Arab states. Public Organization Review, 9(1), 37Œ50. Jreisat, J. E. (2009b). Administ rative development in the Arab world: Impediments and future reform strategies. International Conference on Administrative Development: Towards Excellence in Public Sector Performance . Saudi Arabia, November 1Œ4. Retrieved from http://www.fifty.ipa.edu.sa/conf/customcontro ls/paperworkflash/Content/pdf/m3/en/3.pdf 256 Kabasakal, H., & Dastmalchian, A. (2001). Introduction to the special issue on leadership and culture in the Middle East. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (4), 479Œ488. Kader, A. A. (1973). Islamic leadership and personality from man to mankind. Al-Ittihad, 10(1), 9-10. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning st yle: An overview. In NASSP's Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Khakhar, P., & Rammal, H. G. (2013). Culture and business networks: International business negotiations with Arab managers. International Business Review, 22(3), 578-590. Khan, J., Ahmad, M., & Shah, Z. (2014). The Middle East uprising (the Arab Spring): Prospects and challenges. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(9), 114-120. Khan, M. (2013). The economic consequences of th e Arab Spring. Issue Brief. The Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council Washingt on, DC: The Atlantic Council of the United States. Retrieved from http: //www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/ issue-briefs/the-economic-conse quences-of-the-arab-spring Khattab, A. (2012) [How Arab Executives Learn: Large Scale Survey]. Unpublished raw data. Khodr, H. (2012). The specialized cities of the Gulf Coopera tion Council: A case study of a distinct type of policy innovation. Digest of Middle East Studies, 21(1), 149Œ177. Kidd, J. R. (1973). How adults learn. Chicago: Associated Press Follett Publishing. Kim, D. J. (2008). Generation gaps in engineering? (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA. King, E. W. (2002). Ethnicity. In D. L. Levinson, P. W. Cookson, Jr., & A. R. Sadowski (Eds.), Education and sociology: An encyclopedia (pp. 247-253). New York: Routledge Falmer. Kinninmont, J., & Royal Institute of International Affairs. (2015). Future trends in the Gulf . Retrieved from www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20150218FutureT rendsGCCKinninmont.pdf Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psycholog ical processes -- toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.89 257 Kluckhohn, C. K. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations . Oxford, England: Row, Peterson. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of a dult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books. Kolb D. A. (1984). Experiential learning experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 33-57). New York, NY: Wiley. Kolb, A. L., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Learning and Management Education 4(2), 193-212. Krywulak, T., & Roberts, M. (2009). Winning the figeneration warsfl: Making the most of generational differences and similarities in the workplace . Conference Board of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.aqesss.qc.ca/docs/pdf/i- media/20091126/ConferenceBoard_Com pete_Generation_Wars.pdf Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76. Kuwaiti annual statistical abstract (2012). State of Kuwait Central Statistical Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov.kw/Soca n_Statistic_EN.aspx?ID=18 La Marca, S. (2010). Designing the learning environment (Vol. 3). Australian Council for Educational Research. Laurie, D. (1990). A study of the management style of Japanese-owned U.S. subsidiaries based upon the views of Americans who work for them (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate School, Los Angeles. Lederer, G. (1982). Trends in authoritarianism: A study of adolescents in West Germany and the United States since 1945. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(3), 299-314. doi: 10.1177/0022002182013003002 258 Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119Œ197. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming se rvice employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1006-1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1006 Lincoln, J. R., & Zeitz, G. (1980). Organizational properties from aggregate data: Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review , 391-408. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095173 Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297Œ1349). Chicago: Rand McNally London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lum, L. (2009). Accommodating learning styles in bridging education programs for internationally educated professionals. Canadian Council on Learning. Mameli, P. (2013). Under new management: What the Arab Spring tells us about leadership needs in the Middle East and North Africa. Digest of Middle East Studies , 22(2), 377Œ404. Markaz (2012). GCC Demographic shift: Intergenerational risk-transfer at play. Markaz Research. Prepared and Issued by Kuwait Financial Centre S.A.K. Online. Retrieved from http://www.markaz.com/DesktopModules/ CRD/Attachments/DemographicsResearch- MarkazResearch-June%202012.pdf Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture an d the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. Marsick, V. J., & O™Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30, 159-176. Marsick, M. J., Nicolaides, A., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Adult learning theory and application in HRD. In N.E. Chalofsky, T.S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 40-61). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 259 McCauley, C. D. (2008). Leader development: A re view of research. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McGivney, V. (1993). Women, educa tion, and training: Barriers to access, informal starting points, and progression routes. Leicester: NIACE. McGivney, V. (2004). Understanding persistence in adult learning. Open Learning, 19(1), 33-46. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30-46. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30 McKinsey & Company. (2015). Qiyada McKinsey Capability and Leadership Center. Retrieved from http://mld.mckinsey.com/sites/ default/files/centers/downloads/ Qiyada_External_Brochure.pdf McMurray, D. (1998). Learning styles and organizational behavior in Japanese EFL classrooms. Journal of Fukui Prefecture University, 13, 29-43. Mead, M., Spock, D. B., Capp, A., Spock, D. B ., & Peters, M. (2001, November 30). Margaret Mead: Human nature and the power of culture. The Library of Congress . Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/oneworld-comment.html Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2012). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Merriam, S. B. & Associates. (2007). Non-west perspectives on learning and knowing. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Merriam, S. B. & Clark, M. C. (2006). Learni ng and development: The connection in adulthood. In H. Carol (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (27-51). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mohammed, M., Mostafa, S., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2014). Testing the mediation effect of personŒorganization fit on the relationship between high performance HR practices and employee outcomes in the Egyptian public sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 276-292. 260 Mohsenin, J. (2010). The intersection of community and culture: A model to develop culturally diverse online learning communities . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minnesota. Murphy Jr, E. F., & Gibson, J. W. (2010). Anal yzing generational values among sustainable organizational effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal 75(1). 33-55. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Murphy/publication/262725592_Murphy_E._F._Jr._Gibson_J._W.__Greenwood_R._A._( 2010)._Analyzing_generational_values_among_managers_and_non- managers_for_sustainable_organizational_ effectiveness._SAM_Advanced_Management_Journal_75(1)_33-43._Winter_2010/links/00b7d538950d0ce766000000.pdf Neal, M., & Finlay, J. L. (2008). American hegemony and business education in the Arab world. Journal of Management Education, 32(1), 38-83. Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transfor mational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 49-68. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.003 Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 753-779. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/155511 Noble, S. M., & Schewe, C. D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. Journal of Business Research , 56(12), 979-987. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00268-0 Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership concepts and practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently–and why. New York: Free Press. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257. Osman-Gani, A. M. (2014). International and cro ss-cultural perspectives of HRD. In N.E. Chalofsky, T.S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 326-350). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3 261 Özden, Ç. (2006). Brain drain in Middle East and North Africa: The patterns under the surface. In Expert group meeting on international migr ation and development in the Arab region: Challenges and opportunities, Beirut, Lebanon (pp. 15Œ16). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_Ittmig_Arab/P10_Ozden.pdf Pascal, B. (1671). Pensées (4th ed.) . Paris: Guillaume Desprez. Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C. & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classrooms as contexts for motivating learning. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 327-348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science pe rspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667 Pleck, J., & Rustad, M. (1980). Husbands and wives time in family work and paid work in the 1975-76 study in time use. Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women. Pratt, D. (1991). Conception of self within China and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15 (3), 285-310. PricewaterhouseCooper (2013). The keys to corporate respon sibility employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/us/en/a bout-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-employee-engagement.pdf Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., De la Garza Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., Terpstra-Tong, J., Pekerti, A. A., ... Wallace, A. (2009). Ethica l preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1022-1045. Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Riddle, L., Butt, A., Dalgic, T., & Brock, D. M. (2012). Managerial values in the greater Middle East: Simila rities and differences across seven countries. International Business Review , 21(3), 480-492. Ramdani, B., Mellahi, K., Guermat, C., & Kech ad, R. (2014). The efficacy of high performance work practices in the Middle East: Evidence from Algerian firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (2), 252-275. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. London: Routledge. Reagan, T. (2005). Nonwest educational traditions: Indigenous approaches to educational thought and practice (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 262 Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In McInerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds.) Big theories revisited (Vol. 4) (31-60). Information Age Publishing. Reinl, J. (2015, May 8). Arab fibrain dr ainfl accelerates after Arab Spring: UN. Middle East Eye. Retrieved from http://www.middleeasteye.net/n ews/un-arab-brain-drain-accelerates-after-arab-spring-1752815577 Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (1998). Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robinson, W. S. (2009). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. International Journal of Epidemiology , 38(2), 337-341. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn357 Rood, A. S. (2011). Understanding generational diversity in the workplace: What resorts can and are doing. Journal of Tourism Insights, 1(1), 79-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2328-0824.1009 Ryder, R. A., Bowman, R. L., & Newman, P. P. (1994). Nontraditional student perceived barriers to degree completion. College Student Affairs Journal, 13 (2), 5-13. Sackman, H. (1974). Delphi assessment: Expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of soci al change for psychology: Globalization and psychology's theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44 (6), 914. Sarayrah, Y. K. (2004). Servant leadership in the Bedouin-Arab culture. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 58Œ79. Schaming, R. (2010). Managing multi-generations in today™s workplace. Noomi. Retrieved from http://www.noomii.com/articles/86-managi ng-multigenerations-in-todays-workplace Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45. Semali, L., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). What is indigenous knowledge? Voices from the academy. New York: Falmer Press. 263 Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931-952. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100507 Sheikh, A. Z., Newman, A., & Abdul-Fattah Al A zzeh, S. (2013). Transformational leadership and job involvement in the Middle East: The m oderating role of individually held cultural values. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (6), 1077Œ1095. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is sa tisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325 Sheikh, A. Z., Newman, A., & Al Azzeh, S. A.-F . (2013). Transformational leadership and job involvement in the Middle East: The moderati ng role of individually held cultural values. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(6), 1077Œ1095. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.703216 Shweder, R. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Smith, P. B., Achoui, M., & Harb, C. (2006). Unit y and diversity in Arab managerial styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3), 275Œ289. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generati onal differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23(SPI), 363-382. doi 10.1002/job.147 Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: A comparative study of Ibtor-Student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 284-302. doi: 10.1177/0022022197283005 Srinivasan, V. (2012). Multi generations in the workforce: Building collaboration. IIMB Management Review, 24(1), 48Œ66. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2012.01.004 Stahl, S. A. (2002). Different strokes for different folks? In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 98-107). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill. Stroebe, W. (1976). Is social psychology really that complicated? A review of Martin Irle's Lehrbuch der Sozialpsychologie. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(4), 509-511. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420060410 Sue, S., Zane, N., Ito, J. (1979). Alcohol drinking patterns among Asian and Caucasian Americans. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 10 , 41-56. 264 Syed, J., Hazboun, N. G., & Murray, P. A. (2014). What locals want: Jordanian employees™ views on expatriate managers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 212Œ233. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.812975 Tang, C. (1996). Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students™ learning. In D. Watkin & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learners: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp.183-204). Comparative Educa tion Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations base d on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management 15, 357-373. Taylor, P. C. (1990). The influence of teacher beliefs on teaching practices. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), More history and philosophy of science in science teaching: Proceedings of the History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching First International Conference. Florida State University, Tallahassee. Tekleselassie, A., Mallery, C., & Choi, J. (2013). Unpacking the gender gap in postsecondary participation among African Americans and Ca ucasians using hierarchical generalized linear modeling. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 139-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0139 Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer Press. The role of employee engagement in the return to growth. (2010). Bloomberg Business: Companies and industries. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/aug2010/ca20100813_586946.htm Tootoonchi, A., Lyons, P., & Hagen, A. (2002). MBA students™ perceptions of effective teaching methodologies and instruct or characteristics. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 12(1), 79-93. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley. Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520. Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1984). Cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 39(9), 1006-1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1006 Triandis, H. C, Brislin, R., & Hui, C. H. (1988) . Cross-cultural training across the individualism- collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269-289. 265 Trompenaars, F. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Underst anding diversity in global business (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill, New York. Tulgan, B. (2000). Managing Generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent (revised edition). New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. Twenge, J., & Campbell, S. (2011). Generational di fferences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2(39), 72-84. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2011.5876178 Valentine, T. (1997). United States of America: The current predominance of learning for the job. In P. Belanger & S. Valdivielso (Eds.), The emergence of learning societies: Who participates in adult learning? (pp. 95-108). New York: Elsevier. VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Warne, R. T., Li, Y., McKyer, E. L. J., Condie, R., Diep, C. S., & Murano, P. S. (2012). Managing clustered data using hierarchical linear modeling. J ournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44(3), 271-277. Wilkins, S. (2001). Management development in the Arab gulf states: The influence of language and culture. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33 (7), 260-266. doi: 10.1108/00197850110409032 Willemyns, M. (2008). The rapid tr ansformation of Emirati managers ' values in the United Arab emirates. Proceedings of the Academy of World Busine ss Marketing and Management Development . Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=dubaipapers World Economic Forum & OECD. (2011). The Arab world competitiveness report, 2011-2012. Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Learning styles and typologi es of cultural differences: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 521Œ548. Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2005). Expatriate learning: Exploring how Japanese managers adapt in the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii. Yousif, A. A. (2009). The state and development of adult learning and education in the Arab States. Regional Synthesis Report. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/ en/confinteavi/rightnavigation/ Yu, H. C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510575570 266 Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. H. (2006). Competen ce and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 349-367.