Abstract
Research into the influence of leadership and how cultural context shapes school leadership has recently expanded. This study systematically synthesised literature on the intersection of Hofstede's cultural dimensions and educational leadership. It explored: (a) the extent to which Hofstede's framework is applied in educational leadership research, (b) the impact of cultural dimensions on leadership practices, and (c) the facilitative and restrictive roles of cultural values in shaping leadership effectiveness. Using a structured search strategy across SCOPUS, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar, we identified and synthesised the findings from 37 peer-reviewed journal articles. Findings revealed that power distance, individualism-collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance were the most frequently applied dimensions, primarily as explanatory or moderating factors. Cultural dimensions were studied at multiple levels: individual, organisational, and cross-cultural, and they shaped leadership styles: authoritative styles prevail in collectivist, high-power distance contexts, while participatory approaches succeed in individualist, low-power distance cultures. Most studies supported the notion that leadership influence is facilitated when aligned with cultural expectations, but restricted by mismatches, while some findings challenged this expectation. We highlighted critical gaps in the literature and suggested future directions for research as well as recommendations for policy and practice.
Keywords
Introduction
Since the introduction of contingency theory, scholars have developed an awareness of context's pivotal role in shaping leadership and its effectiveness. Referring to the studies initiated in 1951, Fiedler (1964) reported that the relationship between the leader's interaction style and the group's overall performance was inconsistent across studies. This led Fiedler to develop the contingency theory to highlight that certain leadership behaviours are not effective under all conditions and that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon the context/situation, including the environment, task structure, followers’ needs, and other situational factors (Fiedler, 1964). Early educational leadership researchers also acknowledged the role of context. For example, Bridges (1977) challenged the idea that leaders can be effective regardless of the context in which they work. In a review of research on instructional leadership, Bossert et al. (1982) highlighted three multilayered elements that shape school leadership behaviours: personal, district, and external characteristics. Later scholars (Berkovich, 2014; Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger, 2018; Heck, 1993; Leithwood et al., 2008, 2020; Pashiardis et al., 2018) have highlighted the complex nature of contextual elements, introducing macro, meso, and micro-level factors. For example, Hallinger (2018) offers a new and more comprehensive framework for the context determining the effectiveness of leaders and the nature of their practices. This framework involved several elements: institutional, community, socio-cultural, political, economic, and school improvement. In one of the most widely cited works in educational leadership scholarship, Leithwood et al. (2008, 2020) suggested that successful leaders are sensitive and responsive to the contexts in which they work.
The role of context attracted more attention at the start of the millennium when educational leadership, which emerged as an independent research field in English-speaking Anglo-Saxon countries during the 1950s, received increasing interest in the non-Western developing world as a consequence of increased globalisation (e.g., China, Malaysia, Türkiye, Hong Kong) (Bellibaş and Gümüş, 2019). This led to the introduction of a new dimension to the contextual landscape of leadership: societal culture (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Walker and Dimmock, 2005), which had previously been overlooked (Hallinger, 2018). This new dimension prompted calls for the field to increase its relevance by more seriously engaging with how leadership is understood and enacted across diverse cultural contexts (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Truong and Hallinger, 2017; Truong et al., 2017; Walker, 2003). However, Walker (2003) warns that culture in educational settings is neither monolithic nor static. Instead, it operates at multiple, interrelated levels, from individual and organisational to societal and geo-cultural, and evolves through interactions. Consequently, researchers have recently started to examine how cultural norms, values, and expectations influence leadership and either reinforce or restrict its effectiveness at multiple levels (individual, school, and societal), leading to a growing body of scholarship aiming to understand the culturally dependent nature of leadership practices (Al-Mahdy et al., 2024; Brion et al., 2021; Da'as, 2017; Fisher, 2021; Liu and Hallinger, 2021; Liu and Yin, 2023; Polatcan et al., 2025; Sezgin et al., 2024; Shaked et al., 2021).
Several prominent models or frameworks have been proposed to assess societal culture, such as Schwartz's theory of cultural values (Schwartz, 1999), the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness) framework (Morrison, 2000), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner's (2000) cultural dimensions, and Hofstede's framework of national cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1983). Among the most widely used models for analysing and conceptualising cultural variability in educational leadership research is Hofstede's framework of national cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1983). Moonen (2017) provided evidence that, compared to others, Hofstede's dimensions exhibit consistent and statistically significant relationships with national-level indicators such as innovation, knowledge diffusion, and leadership behaviour. These dimensions are power distance (PDI, short for Power Distance Index), individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI, short for Uncertainty Avoidance Index), indulgence versus restraint (IVR), and long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO/STO) (Hofstede, 2011; Hofstede and McCrae, 2004). Initially developed to examine cross-national differences in organisational behaviour, Hofstede's typology has received substantial recognition among educational leadership researchers (Bellibaş and Kılınç, 2023). They offer a framework for comprehending how cultural values influence leadership behaviours and practices, decision-making processes, communication patterns, and interpersonal dynamics within schools (Polatcan et al., 2025; Sezgin et al., 2024; Shaked et al., 2021; Liu and Hallinger, 2021). These dimensions provide critical insights into the variability of leadership enactment across cultural contexts and how school leaders navigate culturally embedded expectations to enhance their impact on teachers, students, and the school (Bellibaş and Kılınç, 2023).
However, despite the increasing amount of research examining the connection between culture, particularly Hofstede's dimensions, and educational leadership over the past five years (e.g., Al-Mahdy et al., 2024; Guo and Lu, 2018; Ham and Lee, 2024; Liu and Hallinger, 2021; Liu and Yin, 2023; Polatcan et al., 2025; Sezgin et al., 2024; Shaked et al., 2021), no effort has yet been made to systematically synthesise these contributions, apart from a few recent studies (Hallinger et al., 2025; Kaya and Demir, 2022; Ouyang et al., 2025). However, these studies have several limitations. For example, the systematic review by Hallinger et al. (2025) was based on a meta-analysis of quantitative studies focusing solely on the role of context in explaining instructional leadership and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy. Similarly, Kaya and Demir (2022) conducted a meta-analysis centred on the moderating role of culture only within the relationship between leadership and collective teacher culture. Neither investigation examined culturally relevant leadership styles, such as paternalistic leadership. Conversely, Ouyang et al. (2025) carried out a systematic review of Hofstede's cultural dimensions by analysing 28 studies addressing a wider range of educational issues, including pedagogy, curriculum design, and classroom interactions, with samples from university students and medical graduates to teachers, clinical educators, and institutional websites. A comprehensive yet focused synthesis remains absent, which could integrate the findings regarding the influence of cultural dimensions on educational leadership exclusively and their effects on schools, teachers, and students. Such a review could provide clearer guidance for future research, policy formulation, and leadership training programmes. Furthermore, such a review holds practical significance for school leaders themselves in understanding the cultural context in which they operate. It can improve their ability to lead effectively and align their practices with local values and expectations (Leithwood et al., 2008).
This narrative systematic review addresses this gap by critically synthesising the literature on the intersection of Hofstede's cultural dimensions and educational leadership. Specifically, it provides an overview of how Hofstede's cultural dimensions have been utilised in educational leadership research by exploring: (a) the extent to which Hofstede's framework is applied in school leadership research, (b) the influence of cultural dimensions on leadership styles and practices, and (c) the facilitating and restricting roles of cultural values in shaping leadership effectiveness. The following three research questions guided this systematic review:
How are Hofstede's cultural dimensions utilised in educational leadership research?
Which cultural dimensions are most frequently examined? How are these dimensions applied (e.g., as moderators or explanatory factors for leadership practices)? At what levels (individual, institutional, or societal) are these dimensions used in leadership research? What impact do cultural dimensions have on leadership styles and practices in educational settings? What are the facilitative and restrictive roles of cultural dimensions in leadership influence?
Methods
We conducted this systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach. Narrative synthesis is a systematic review approach that integrates research findings from both qualitative and quantitative studies (Barnett-Page and Thomas, 2009; Popay et al., 2006). It provides a structured yet flexible approach to synthesising research evidence, particularly when studies vary in design, context, or methodological approach (Frentz et al., 2025; Lucas et al., 2007). According to Popay et al. (2006), narrative synthesis consists of four key components: (a) developing a theoretical framework, (b) constructing an initial synthesis, (c) exploring relationships within the data, and (d) assessing the reliability and robustness of the synthesis. Rather than following a strictly linear process, these components operate iteratively, allowing continuous refinement and reassessment.
The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) as seen in Figure 1.
PRISMA flowchart.
Literature search and study identification
We conducted a literature search and study identification using the keyword string: Keyword String: (leader* OR administrat* OR “head teacher*” OR headteacher* OR principal* OR manage*) AND (Hofstede OR “cultural dimensions” OR “cultural values” OR “cultural framework” OR “power distance” OR “individualism” OR “collectivism” OR “masculinity” OR “femininity” OR “uncertainty avoidance” OR “long-term orientation” OR “short-term orientation” OR “indulgence” OR “restraint”) AND (school* OR education*)
The main searches were conducted in January 2025, with supplementary manual additions in February. Sources included SCOPUS, Web of Science (WoS), ERIC, and Google Scholar. Depending on the filtering options available in each database, restrictions were applied, such as limiting results to social sciences or education studies, journal articles, and publications in English. Initially, we searched SCOPUS, which yielded 1320 articles. We then repeated this search in Web of Science (1740) and ERIC (290). After merging results and removing irrelevant studies and duplicates, 1768 articles remained for initial screening. To minimise the risk of publication bias and ensure comprehensive coverage, including grey literature, we also conducted a Google Scholar search using the same keywords (Li et al., 2024; Polanin et al., 2017). This yielded 100 additional articles for screening, bringing the total to 1868 for further review.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria encompassed empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) focused on K-12 school leadership, explicitly examining Hofstede's framework, and utilising data from principals, teachers, or other school staff, with no time restrictions. Exclusion criteria eliminated studies that did not incorporate Hofstede's framework, review articles, research unrelated to leadership, studies on higher education, as well as books, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
During the initial abstract screening phase, one author reviewed all abstracts to identify studies that clearly met or did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria. This approach was adopted to manage the large number of records while ensuring consistency in applying the criteria. In cases of ambiguity or uncertainty, particularly in grey areas or where criteria could be variably interpreted, the second author independently reviewed the study. These cases were then discussed, and final decisions reached by consensus. This two-step screening procedure aimed to reduce selection bias while balancing rigour. This process resulted in the selection of 116 articles for further consideration.
Quality assessment
In addition to our study's inclusion and exclusion criteria, we considered validity and reliability by following the common key points outlined by Barnett-Page and Thomas (2009), Lucas et al. (2007), and Popay et al. (2006) for study quality appraisal in narrative synthesis (e.g., guided by the review questions, displaying characteristics of included studies). We also used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist (2018) to assess study quality (e.g., whether data analysis methods were articulated and the study's relevance to our research context). Uncertainties and discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the authors, such as through independent evaluation of the studies. Storing article metadata in Mendeley facilitated organisation and retrieval for later review stages.
A final evaluation was conducted to verify the list of included and excluded articles, ensuring consistency and resolving any remaining differences. No changes were required. As a result, 37 studies were included, while 79 were excluded based on the set criteria (see Table 1). Some reasons for excluding articles included the following: studies that include Hofstede's framework but focus on higher education contexts and examine cultural differences and technology acceptance among students; not studying leadership but related to the medical school curriculum; investigating the development and implementation of a teacher leader role (peer coaching) among teachers.
Included studies and main findings.
Note: Individualism/collectivism (IDV), indulgence/restraint (IVR), masculinity/femininity (MAS), long-term/short-term orientation (LTO/STO), power distance index (PDI), uncertainty-avoidance (UAI)
Data extraction and analysis
We applied a custom-designed template to code studies that met the inclusion criteria, enabling us to systematically extract key information relevant to our guiding research questions (Lucas et al., 2007). The template includes bibliometric details, such as purpose, design, data collection tool, analysis method, country of study, and sample characteristics, as well as key findings related to the investigated dimensions. Furthermore, it details how these dimensions were applied and the level at which they were examined to ensure transparency, clarity, and reproducibility. One researcher independently conducted the coding process by utilising the template, while the other evaluated and validated it to enhance accuracy. Any discrepancies that arose were discussed and resolved through mutual agreement, involving a thorough review of the included studies and an evaluation of coding to confirm the accuracy and completeness of data extraction, ensuring the study's trustworthiness.
Findings
RQ1: How are Hofstede's cultural dimensions utilised?
Which cultural dimensions are most frequently examined?
Our review indicates that specific dimensions are more prominent in educational leadership research. PDI is the most frequently analysed dimension, addressed in 29 studies (Table 2). This reflects a strong focus on hierarchical structures, authority relationships, and leadership dynamics across cultures, such as principal–teacher relationships (Massry-Herzallah and Arar, 2019) and the influence of societal values and economic well-being on leadership and autonomy (Minelgaite et al., 2019). IDV follows, with 19 studies addressing both aspects and two focusing solely on Collectivism. This suggests a significant interest in how cultural orientations toward individual achievement or group cohesion shape leadership, exemplified in research on paternalistic leadership and teacher commitment (Bellibas et al., 2024) and the role of cultural values in school improvement (Oliveira et al., 2023).
Distribution of Hofstede's dimensions across analytical levels.
Note 1: Individualism/collectivism (IDV), indulgence/restraint (IVR), masculinity/femininity (MAS), long-term/short-term orientation (LTO/STO), power distance index (PDI), uncertainty-avoidance (UAI)
Note 2: Percentages indicate the distribution of each cultural dimension across analytical levels relative to the total number of times that dimension was examined. For example, power distance (PDI) was examined 33 times in total, presenting insights for more than one level in some studies: 48.5% at the national level, 27.3% at the organisational level, and 24.2% at the individual level.
UAI appears in 16 studies, highlighting interest in how leaders manage risk and ambiguity. Research includes cultural stigma around women in leadership (Brion and Ampah-Mensah, 2021) and participative decision-making as an organisational routine (Ham and Lee, 2024). MAS has received less attention, appearing in seven studies examining both aspects and one focusing solely on Masculinity. This suggests gender-role expectations in leadership remain underexplored. Bissessar (2018) analysed leadership perspectives among eight female educators across five countries, while Brion and Ampah-Mensah (2021) examined gendered access to principalship in Ghana. Fackler et al. (2021) conducted a cross-cultural study on teacher self-efficacy, indirectly addressing MAS values related to classroom management.
LTO has been addressed in three studies, with another three focusing exclusively on LTO. This highlights a niche but emerging interest in how future orientation and tradition influence leadership. For example, Minelgaite et al. (2019) utilised PISA data across 70 countries to examine LTO's predictive role in leadership and autonomy, while Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene and Jurgile (2023) integrated OECD TALIS and Eurostat data to investigate LTO's predictive power on instructional leadership across 22 European countries. Polatcan et al. (2025) examined how teachers’ LTO affects expectations of principals’ paternalistic leadership in Türkiye. Lastly, IVR is the least explored dimension, addressed in only two studies—one employing a quantitative and the other utilising a qualitative research design (Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene and Jurgile, 2023; Oliveira et al., 2023).
How are these dimensions applied?
Most studies (n = 21) applied dimensions as explanatory factors shaping leadership behaviours and perceptions. These highlight how underlying values and norms influence leadership practices. Barth and Tsemach (2021), for instance, explored principals’ authentic leadership perceptions across collectivistic and individualistic cultures in Israeli-Jewish schools, while Bissessar (2018) applied five Hofstede dimensions to female educational leaders’ perspectives across five countries. Similarly, Da'as (2017) examined how individualist and collectivist contexts influence principals’ cognitive, interpersonal, and strategic skills.
Fourteen studies applied cultural dimensions as moderators, with six also examining them as predictors. These studies emphasise leadership effectiveness as contingent upon broader cultural factors. For instance, PDI moderates the relationship between distributed leadership (DL) and teacher voice behaviour in Kuwaiti schools (Alazmi, 2024) while IDV moderates the link between paternalistic leadership and teacher commitment in Türkiye (Bellibas et al., 2024). Erdogan et al. (2024) demonstrated how Collectivism moderates the influence of DL on collective teacher innovativeness. Pan and Wiens (2024) identified PDI and UAI as moderators of Taiwanese school practitioners’ curriculum reform responses, and Teng and Tsang (2024) showed that PDI, IDV, and UAI moderate decentralisation strategies’ effects on student academic achievement in a cross-country analysis.
Fewer studies (n = 7) investigated dimensions as predictors of leadership practices. Al-Khatib (2024) examined PDI's impact on Emirati female principals’ leadership styles. Large-scale analyses by Minelgaite et al. (2019) and Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene and Jurgile (2023) revealed how IDV, UAI, and LTO predict leadership autonomy and instructional leadership (IL) across countries. Barth and Tsemach (2021) compared teachers’ perceptions of authentic leadership in Israeli-Jewish schools, illustrating how cultural orientations influence leadership evaluations.
At what levels are these dimensions used?
Our findings show that the dimensions are employed across different levels. Twenty-one studies addressed national/societal levels, three of which also considered organisational levels. Fourteen studies focused on the organisational level, with five combining organisational and individual foci, while 10 studies examined individual levels.
Various research foci emerge when examining studies that utilised cultural dimensions at the national level, highlighting how cultural factors shape school leadership practices. Brion and Ampah-Mensah (2021) showed that in Ghana, high PDI, high UAI, collectivism (IDV), and femininity (MAS) created initial leadership barriers for women but were ultimately navigated through supportive, relational practices rooted in cultural norms. Similarly, Da'as (2017) found that leadership was perceived as relational and consensus-driven in collectivist cultures, but more autonomous in individualist ones. Fackler et al. (2021) demonstrated that top-down IL aligns with high PDI, IDV, and UAI in East and Southeast Asia. In contrast, leadership influence weakens in low-PDI, individualist contexts like Nordic countries. Minelgaite et al. (2019) found that PDI and IDV positively predict educational leadership, while MAS, UAI, and LTO negatively relate to school autonomy, showing how cultural values shape authority distribution. Supporting this, Ólafsson and Hansen (2022) reported that Iceland's low PDI and high IDV foster decentralised leadership, while Truong and Hallinger (2017) found that Vietnam's high PDI and collectivism produce hierarchical, directive leadership aligned with Confucian values.
At the organisational level, PDI (n = 9) and UAI (n = 8) were most frequently studied, linked to teacher authority acceptance, school culture, and leadership structures. Studies show that PDI and UAI manifest differently across school contexts, shaping how authority is exercised (Deniz and Demirkasimoğlu, 2022), collaboration is fostered (Lee, 2025), and innovation is supported (Ham and Lee, 2024). For instance, hierarchical structures in high-PDI schools limit teacher agency (Tian and Virtanen, 2021), while low-PDI environments enhance professional learning and work engagement (Liu and Yin, 2023). Similarly, high-UAI cultures benefit more from participative decision-making, which fosters school innovativeness by enabling structured uncertainty management (Ham and Lee, 2024). Lastly, collectivism moderates the impact of DL on collective teacher innovativeness, strengthening collaboration through shared school culture (Erdoğan et al., 2024).
At the individual level, PDI (n = 10) was the most prominent one, followed by UAI (n = 5). Multiple studies highlighted how PDI shapes teacher-principal dynamics. Alazmi (2024) found that teachers with higher PDI felt less empowered and voiced fewer concerns, even under the same distributed leadership. Al-Mahdy et al. (2024) showed that IL had stronger effects on teacher agency and instruction among those with lower PDI, underscoring its relational and culturally contingent nature. Similarly, Özdemir et al. (2023a) found that IL influenced differentiated instruction only through teacher enthusiasm, and this effect was stronger when teachers perceived their leaders as more egalitarian. Polatcan et al. (2025) extended this perspective by showing that teachers’ expectations for paternalistic leadership were shaped by individual cultural values, including PDI, collectivism, UAI, LTO, and masculinity, especially when trust in the principal was high.
Several studies show that the same cultural dimension can serve different functions across analytical levels. For instance, PDI helps explain hierarchical leadership structures at the organisational level (Tian and Virtanen, 2021), while at the individual level, it moderates how teachers perceive empowerment and voice under distributed leadership (Alazmi, 2024). Similarly, UAI restricts change efforts in Taiwanese schools (Pan and Wiens, 2024), yet in other contexts, it enhances innovation when combined with structured participative decision-making (Ham and Lee, 2024).
RQ2: What impact do cultural dimensions have on leadership styles and practices?
Cultural dimensions significantly shape leadership styles by influencing authority, decision-making, and leader–teacher relationships. IDV affects whether leadership emphasises autonomy or group cohesion. For instance, Barth and Tsemach (2021) found stronger authentic leadership traits in Israeli state-secular and religious schools (individualistic) than in ultra-Orthodox (collectivist) ones. Similarly, Bellibaş et al. (2024) found that paternalistic leadership is more effective in collectivist cultures, where benevolent authority is valued. PDI also plays a key role: high-PDI settings (e.g., Türkiye, China) foster centralised, often paternalistic or transactional leadership (Liu and Hallinger, 2021; Polatcan et al., 2025), while low-PDI contexts (e.g., Nordic countries) support participative and transformational styles (Fackler et al., 2021). In Iceland, Ólafsson and Hansen (2022) linked low PDI and high IDV to decentralised, autonomous leadership. Similarly, Shaked et al. (2021) found that Israeli principals within a low-PDI and clan-oriented culture emphasised consensus, relational leadership, and emotional well-being over directive supervision, adapting IL to culturally valued norms of egalitarianism and emotional well-being. Yet, interestingly, while high PDI typically aligns with centralised, paternalistic leadership styles (Polatcan et al., 2025), some findings reveal that teacher participation can still be mobilised effectively under certain conditions. For instance, in high-PDI countries, teacher involvement in decision-making (as the most effective educational decentralisation strategy) was found to enhance student achievement, particularly in reading and science (Teng and Tsang, 2024). This suggests that cultural expectations may be negotiated or moderated by institutional mechanisms, such as participatory policies.
UAI also influences leadership practices. For instance, Ham and Lee (2024), analysing data from 7507 schools across 41 countries, found that in high-UAI countries, structured participative decision-making enhanced innovativeness by helping schools manage ambiguity collectively. Conversely, Pan and Wiens (2024) found that high UAI in Taiwanese schools hindered teacher receptivity to curriculum reform, particularly behavioural intention. These findings suggest that cultural impact depends on whether leadership fosters shared or top-down responses to uncertainty. Moreover, UAI appears to influence openness to emergent leadership and change. In Bissessar's (2018) study, Jamaica's low UAI score aligned with a preference for flexible, situational leadership that embraced risk and innovation. This cultural tolerance for ambiguity may enable female leaders to assert emergent leadership roles, particularly in online environments, which were perceived to foster greater gender equity.
MAS also shapes leadership practices. In masculine cultures, leadership tends to be hierarchical and task-oriented. Polatcan et al. (2025) found that teachers in these societies, such as Türkiye, preferred paternalistic leadership, reinforcing centralised authority. Stott and Tin (2000) similarly described leadership in Singapore as competitive and assertive. Minelgaite et al. (2019) observed that masculine cultures limit school autonomy, reinforcing hierarchical control. By contrast, feminine cultures prioritise collaborative, relationship-driven leadership. Brion and Ampah-Mensah (2021) found that female principals in Ghana employed nurturing leadership to build trust, while Oliveira et al. (2023) showed Brazilian schools prioritise teamwork over competition in their qualitative multi-case study in two high-performing and two low-performing Brazilian schools. Fackler et al. (2021) further illustrated that Nordic countries favour egalitarian, decentralised leadership.
LTO also shapes leadership practices. Minelgaite et al. (2019), using data from principals across 70 countries, found that LTO predicts leadership styles that favour stability and future-oriented strategies over short-term, reactive approaches. However, LTO's influence appears context-dependent, as it is less frequently studied. High-LTO countries (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia) emphasise long-term planning and structured professional development. In contrast, low-LTO countries (e.g., Jamaica, Trinidad, Lebanon, Nordic) focus on pragmatic, flexible leadership. For instance, Jamaica prioritises immediate problem-solving over long-term vision, while Nordic countries emphasise work-life balance over rigid academic success. In Canada, leadership practices reflect a balanced approach, combining future-oriented mentoring and capacity-building with attention to present needs and team cohesion (Bissessar, 2018; Fackler et al., 2021).
IVR has received less scholarly attention, but it also impacts leadership. Indulgent cultures emphasise flexibility and teacher autonomy, whereas restrained cultures prioritise discipline and structured leadership. Using a broad European dataset, Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene and Jurgile (2023) found that IVR negatively correlates with IL but is not a significant predictor, suggesting other cultural or institutional factors play stronger roles. Principals in restrained societies tend towards structured leadership, while indulgent societies favour flexibility. In their case study, Oliveira et al. (2023) found that Brazilian schools balance discipline with student autonomy with a moderate level of IVR, indicating contextually adaptive leadership styles. These findings reflect both the under-theorised nature of IVR in educational leadership research and its potential contextual variability, requiring further exploration.
RQ3: What are the facilitative and restrictive roles of cultural dimensions in leadership influence?
Cultural dimensions facilitate leadership influence when leadership practices align with cultural expectations, fostering trust and engagement. PDI is critical in determining whether hierarchical or participatory styles are more effective. In high-PDI cultures, hierarchical leadership styles such as paternalistic and top-down instructional leadership (IL) enhance trust and reinforce authority (Fackler et al., 2021; Polatcan et al., 2025). Teachers in such settings (e.g., Türkiye, Vietnam, and East Asia) expect strong, decisive leadership (Truong et al., 2017), with Fackler et al. (2021) confirming that IL is more effective in structured, high-PDI environments by providing stability and improving teacher self-efficacy. Conversely, participative and transformational leadership strengthens influence in low-PDI cultures through shared decision-making and teacher empowerment. Liu and Hallinger (2021) found that low PDI enhances IL by promoting teacher engagement, professional learning, and self-efficacy. Similarly, Liu and Yin (2023) showed that low-PDI environments enable PLCs, strengthening collaboration and instructional practices. Research from Iceland and Israel supports that flat hierarchies favour collaborative leadership over authority-driven models (Ólafsson and Hansen, 2022; Shaked et al., 2021).
However, leadership influence is restricted when styles contradict cultural norms. In high-PDI settings, distributed leadership often fails because teachers defer to authority rather than participating actively (Alazmi, 2024; Massry-Herzallah and Arar, 2019). For instance, hierarchical authority is the norm in Ghana and the Middle East, limiting teacher participation (Brion and Ampah-Mensah, 2021). Conversely, in low-PDI contexts, top-down leadership is ineffective because teachers resist centralised control and expect autonomy. Shaked et al. (2021) found that Israeli principals struggle to exert IL as teachers expect involvement in decision-making, while Liu (2020) observed that rigid hierarchies reduce engagement in Nordic and Anglo-Saxon systems, reinforcing the need for distributed leadership.
That said, our data also revealed that differences between national-level cultural indices and individual perceptions complicate such generalisations. For instance, in China, a country typically characterised as high-PDI, teachers reported only moderate levels of PDI, especially among younger generations. Younger teachers tended to perceive lower PDI in interactions with their principals than the seniors (Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021).
UAI also shapes leadership influence. In Northern Europe, high UAI supports rule-based IL (Nedzinskaite-Maciuniene and Jurgile, 2023). However, structured participative decision-making can also promote innovation by reducing uncertainty. Ham and Lee (2024) examined how UAI moderates the relationship between participative decision-making and school innovativeness across 41 countries. While participative decision-making consistently enhanced innovation, its effect was stronger in high-UAI cultures. This challenges the conventional belief that uncertainty-avoiding cultures resist change; instead, it suggests that structured and predictable collaboration can reduce ambiguity and enhance innovation in such contexts (e.g., Japan and Italy). Their findings highlight the value of culturally responsive leadership, showing that innovation can be effectively promoted through structured participatory practices even in risk-averse settings. Similarly, schools with medium-to-high UAI can balance regulatory compliance with adaptability, stabilising uncertainty while maintaining flexibility (Oliveira et al., 2023). Yet, other evidence points to the restrictive side of UAI. In Taiwan, Pan and Wiens (2024) found that high-UAI environments constrained curriculum reform by reducing teachers’ behavioural intention to change. High UAI may reinforce bureaucratic rigidity, reduce autonomy, and foster resistance to change. For instance, in Ghana, high UAI contributed to community resistance against female principals due to doubts regarding their leadership legitimacy (Brion and Ampah-Mensah, 2021). Rigid bureaucratic structures can also decrease teacher autonomy and motivation by overemphasising compliance (Massry-Herzallah and Arar, 2019), and high UAI correlates negatively with school autonomy (Minelgaite et al., 2019). Thus, while UAI provides stability and clarity, excessive rigidity may suppress leadership diversity and responsiveness.
IDV further shapes leadership influence by determining decision-making structures and group dynamics. Collectivist cultures prioritise hierarchical leadership, group harmony, and obedience to authority, fostering teamwork but limiting individual autonomy (Deniz and Demirkasimoğlu, 2022; Truong et al., 2017). In Latin America, leadership tends to be centralised, while in Trinidad and Lebanon, teamwork and shared vision enhance leadership effectiveness (Bissessar, 2018; Liu, 2020). East and South-East Asian (ESEA) countries view student success as a shared responsibility, reducing pressure on individuals (Fackler et al., 2021). Conversely, individualist cultures promote decentralised leadership, teacher autonomy, and stakeholder participation (Liu, 2020), such as teachers expect training to be self-directed rather than structured (Fackler et al., 2021). Yet, findings suggest decentralisation does not always correlate with improved academic achievement (Teng and Tsang, 2024). In collectivist settings, teachers often consult colleagues before decision acceptance, reinforcing collaboration and cohesion (Deniz and Demirkasimoğlu, 2022). Thus, collectivism enhances teamwork but might restrict innovation, whereas individualism encourages independence but may undermine group cohesion, creating a dilemma to be managed depending on the context.
Gendered leadership challenges within highly masculine cultures further restrict leadership influence. Brion and Ampah-Mensah (2021) observed that female leaders in masculine societies faced resistance and were compelled to adopt more authoritative leadership styles to gain legitimacy. This illustrates how cultural dimensions shape not only leadership practices but also leader legitimacy, particularly when leadership demographics diverge from cultural norms.
Furthermore, the studies emphasise that individual-level cultural values also act as micro-contexts that influence leadership impact within the same national culture. For instance, Polatcan et al. (2025) found that teachers in Türkiye who scored high on PDI, UAI, collectivism, MAS, and short-term orientation tended to expect and support paternalistic leadership. In such contexts, leadership that reflects benevolent authority and hierarchy aligns with teachers’ expectations, thereby enhancing influence. In contrast, Sezgin et al. (2024) showed that teachers with low-PDI and low-UAI profiles responded more positively to transformational leadership, while those with high-PDI and high-UAI profiles exhibited reduced satisfaction under the same leadership style. This suggests that even within the same context, micro-cultural differences among teachers can significantly alter leadership outcomes. Similarly, Bellibas et al. (2024) demonstrated that the perceived IDV of the school culture moderates the indirect effect of paternalistic leadership on teacher commitment through well-being. Teachers who viewed their schools as collectivist reported stronger positive effects of paternalistic leadership on their well-being and commitment, whereas in individualist school contexts, these effects were weaker. These findings show that leadership practices must respond not only to national norms but also to cultural differences within schools.
Discussion and implications
In response to the growing empirical research investigating the link between Hofstede's cultural dimensions and educational leadership, this study aimed to synthesise relevant articles to identify how cultural dimensions are applied in leadership research, how they shape leadership practices and the effectiveness of the practices. Although our review identified an acceptable number of articles, research in this area remains nascent regarding potential international contributions to educational leadership knowledge. Our review found that PDI was the most frequently examined dimension, followed by IDV and UAI. Meanwhile, MAS and IVR were studied less frequently.
The reviewed articles examined these dimensions at various levels, providing empirical evidence that cultural dimensions and their implications for leadership differ across societies, individuals, and organisations (Polatcan et al., 2025). This finding indicates that the influence of culture on leadership is neither monolithic nor uniform. Rather, the way cultural values influence leadership practices and expectations can vary significantly depending on the specific context in which they are applied (Walker, 2003). At the societal level, for example, leadership behaviours may mirror dominant national cultural values (e.g., leadership was relational and consensus-driven in collectivist cultures, but more autonomous in individualist ones [Da'as, 2017]), while at the organisational level, subcultures or institutional norms may either reinforce or diverge from these broader societal patterns. Furthermore, individuals within the same society or organisation may interpret and respond to cultural expectations differently, influenced by their own experiences, beliefs, and roles (Polatcan et al., 2025).
Many studies used the dimensions as explanatory factors for leadership behaviours, emphasising the significance of cultural values on the nature of leadership practices across different countries and contexts. They showed that Hofstede's cultural dimensions significantly impacted leadership practices in educational settings by influencing authority structures, decision-making processes, and leader–teacher interactions. Collectivist and high-PDI cultures benefit from relational, authoritative leadership, while individualist and low-PDI cultures favour participatory, transparent approaches (Da'as, 2017). High-UAI environments function best with structured leadership styles, whereas low-UAI contexts favour flexibility. This aligns with previous theoretical studies suggesting that societal culture is a contextual factor that significantly influences leadership practices and behaviours (Hallinger, 2018; Walker, 2004).
Our results also support the claim that leadership effectiveness depends on the context (Hallinger, 2018; Leithwood et al., 2008, 2020). Many studies show that cultural dimensions significantly influence the relationship between leadership and various rational, organisational, and emotional variables. These results emphasise the importance of culturally adaptable or responsive leadership that meets stakeholder expectations to strengthen the influence of school leadership (e.g., Oliveira et al., 2023; Truong and Hallinger, 2017; Truong et al., 2017).
Our review showed that different studies exploring the same dimensions can suggest contradictory results. Such contradictions indicate the need for further research to discern why this is the case. For example, Ham and Lee (2024) showed that schools operating in high UAI cultures can promote innovation if change is well-structured, while other studies (e.g., Pan and Wiens, 2024) found that high UAI can inhibit the flexibility needed to innovate, a key function of future-ready schools. This suggests that culture alone, although essential for understanding leader enactment across societies as measured by Hofstede's dimensions, may have incomplete explanatory power. As such, further exploration may more explicitly account for the different influences through more sophisticated designs that consider several factors.
Firstly, research may consider other interrelated contextual factors alongside culture to understand how leaders lead. Although several studies utilise in-school contextual variables (paternalistic leadership, school culture, distributed leadership, autonomy) in their design (e.g., Bellibas et al., 2024), fewer studies apply broader contextual factors. When examining the context of deep leadership structures in Hong Kong schools, Walker (2004) differentiated the interconnected elements of constitution and culture. Constitution included the more formal aspects of organisation and system governance, while culture relates to the shared norms, values, and patterns of understanding that appear relatively common across a system or collectivity and influence individual and group behaviour at all levels (p. 76), according to Hofstede's definition and dimensions. Therefore, while applying Hofstede's dimensions, further research may consider integrating more formal systems and/or school-specific features and policies impacting schools and their leadership. Although we recommend including broader contextual features in research designs, it is recognised that when these reach the school, they inevitably engage in an ongoing iterative relationship, thus making research more complex.
Secondly, one issue with the cultural dimension theory is that it might lead researchers to believe that cultural boundaries are static entities and ignore the constantly evolving hybridity of cultures. Some of the contradictions highlighted in this paper might result from this shift (e.g., Sezgin et al., 2024). Hofstede's work first appeared in 1983, and although this review shows it remains a strong analytic framework, it is advisable for researchers to further test the definitions and details of the dimensions, considering a world that is changing rapidly. Research must therefore acknowledge that cultures shift and transform over time due to, for example, technological advancement, globalisation, political fluctuations, and economic development. This transformation is inevitably accompanied by greater uncertainty and volatility flowing into schools. For instance, shifting cultural configurations can significantly impact school and system decision-making structures. In this regard, research could explore the implications of UAI on decision-making processes in schools, specifically how varying and shifting levels of uncertainty avoidance impact participatory leadership frameworks. An in-depth analysis of how educational leaders implement decision-making practices in high versus low UAI environments could yield strategies for fostering adaptive leadership that accommodates cultural preferences while promoting innovation.
Thirdly, some studies in our review question the dominant assumption of cultural dimension theory that effective leadership must align with societal culture. We found that researchers can differentiate the influence of culture on school leadership within national boundaries and resist the temptation to view cultural and national boundaries as the same. For example, in China, the impact of culture on schools in a developed metropolis like Shanghai (Liu and Hallinger, 2021) can differ significantly from its effect on a relatively underdeveloped Chinese province like Guizhou. This difference is also evident between low and high-SES schools within the same immediate area. This review supports the proposition that high Power Distance shapes leader–follower interactions in schools (e.g., Massry-Herzallah and Arar, 2019). However, it leaves us uncertain about the varying effects within differently structured schools with different leaders, all within the same society. This presents a rich ground for future research.
Moreover, schools may develop distinct subcultures that diverge from dominant societal norms, shaped by leadership practices, local context, or staff composition. These subcultures may either moderate or challenge the expected influence of national cultural patterns, requiring more context-sensitive analyses of intra-organisational variation. For instance, Erdoğan et al. (2024) demonstrated that in Türkiye's high-PDI and collectivist context, school-level collectivist values and supportive leadership practices facilitated the successful implementation of distributed leadership, emphasising the need for further research on how school subcultures may align with or counteract national tendencies.
Another finding of the review is the uneven application of various dimensions. Our review revealed that certain dimensions are explored more frequently than others. We are unsure of the reasons for this difference. However, it may be that PDI and IDV are more easily applicable to understanding principal teacher relationships, autonomy, the place of hierarchy in schools, and the importance of group cohesion. Whereas studies using these dimensions are likely to continue, studies using UAI may increase with the current worldwide focus on future-ready schools. However, there appears to be a need for researchers to further explore LTO, IVR, and especially MAS. Given the findings on the lack of attention to the Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension, future research could delve deeper into gendered leadership challenges within varying cultural contexts. Exploring how female leaders navigate PDI and IDV in masculine cultures could reveal unique transactional and transformational leadership strategies. Research to better understand the intersectionality of gender and culture would enrich the dialogue around equitable leadership practices.
Our findings highlight the need for more longitudinal studies of cultural dynamics. Quantitative articles in our data set relied predominantly on cross-sectional analysis. Building on our earlier comment about culture's dynamic nature, longitudinal research could track changes in cultural values over time and their impact on leadership approaches. This could deepen our understanding of cultural dynamics by identifying generational differences and age-related value shifts. Longitudinal data could also help establish cause-and-effect relationships and, when combined with PISA datasets, explore links between culture and factors such as economic development. For instance, studies could examine how shifts in dimensions like LTO and IVR influence educational leadership and school change. As societies evolve, educational leaders must adapt their practices to align with changing cultural values. Therefore, longitudinal research could offer critical insights into how leaders across diverse cultural contexts can proactively adjust their strategies in a rapidly changing world. Ultimately, examining Hofstede's dimensions over time would move beyond static assessments, providing a more dynamic and nuanced understanding of cultural change and its broader societal impacts.
A related observation concerns the importance of professional development (PD) in enhancing future schools and school leaders’ critical role in this process. Hofstede's cultural dimensions impact PD by influencing how individuals from different cultures interact, collaborate, and learn within a school. Future research could explore the influence of Hofstede's cultural dimensions on the professional development of teachers and leaders. For example, investigating how cultural dimensions, such as LTO and IDV, impact perceptions of and participation in PD initiatives could offer key insights for leadership practices across different cultures (e.g., Fackler et al., 2021). Understanding how these dimensions shape leaders’ and teachers’ practices, expectations, and needs concerning professional growth may facilitate the design of more inclusive and culturally responsive development programmes.
Our research showed that few studies focus on developing culturally adaptive leadership models (e.g., Oliveira et al., 2023; Polatcan et al., 2025). Developing and testing culturally adaptive leadership models incorporating Hofstede's dimensions could provide a robust framework for educational leaders. Research could focus on creating assessments to help leaders evaluate their cultural alignment with staff expectations, ensuring that leadership practices are effective and enhance commitment in diverse educational settings. Such models could also serve as a foundation for school leadership preparation and ongoing development approaches. A worthwhile area for research on culturally adaptive leadership models using Hofstede's dimensions, which is largely missing from the literature, may be the international school sector. Schools in this sector typically consist of individual or small groups of schools, leaders, teachers, communities, and students from different cultures in easily identifiable sites operating within national contexts. The deeper application of Hofstede's dimensions in such schools or systems has the potential to contribute meaningful insights in this area.
Another finding was that studies often relied on a single dimension in their analysis. Our review therefore reinforces the need for more cross-cultural comparative studies of school leadership and organisation, including additional studies that apply all five dimensions within a single study (e.g., Bissessar, 2018). Future research should continue to adopt a comparative approach to examine how variations in cultural dimensions (PDI, IDV, UAI, MAS, LTO, IVR) across different countries influence leadership effectiveness in diverse educational contexts. For example, studies exploring how leadership styles adapt in environments with high versus low PDI and how this dynamic affects teacher autonomy and educational outcomes could contribute to developing tailored leadership frameworks that resonate with specific cultural contexts.
Finally, despite increasing research on artificial intelligence (AI) in educational leadership, our dataset showed no research on the interaction between new forms of technology and leadership across different cultural contexts. With the increasing reliance on technology and AI in schools, examining how cultural dimensions affect the adoption and integration of the emerging educational technology by leaders is particularly relevant. Researching best technological practices in high-PDI versus low-PDI contexts, or in collectivist versus individualist societies, could inform the development of appropriate, culturally sensitive technology training for educational leaders. For example, in more individualistic cultures, teachers and students might favour technology that enables personalised learning and self-directed study. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, leaders might frame technology as a tool for collaborative learning and group interaction among teachers and students. Research aimed at better understanding Hofstede's dimensions may assist educators in designing technology-enhanced learning environments that are more culturally sensitive and effective.
Beyond the theoretical and empirical insights discussed above, we offer several implications for policy and practice. First, leadership preparation programs should include modules on cultural awareness and responsiveness across multiple levels: national, school-wide, and individual. Given that teachers’ cultural orientations shape their leadership expectations (Polatcan et al., 2025; Sezgin et al., 2024), aspiring leaders must be equipped to navigate cultural variability and adapt their practices accordingly. Second, educational policymakers could promote culturally responsive frameworks. For example, in high-PDI and collectivist contexts, distributed leadership tends to be more effective when trust-building and shared cultural values are cultivated at the school level (Erdoğan et al., 2024). Thus, policy guidelines on school autonomy and teacher collaboration should remain flexible enough to accommodate both national culture and institutional readiness. Finally, cultural diagnostics within the school can help leaders identify prevailing subcultural patterns and adjust their leadership approaches accordingly. Such alignment can enhance the effectiveness of leadership practices, foster teacher engagement, and ultimately improve school outcomes.
Footnotes
Ethic statement
This research does not include human subjects
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
There is no data associated with this study