Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the leadership orientations of (1) structural frame, (2) human resource frame, (3) political frame, and (4) symbolic frame of administrators of private higher education institutions in Japan and the United States of America. Beyond that comparison, the leadership orientation frames were analyzed in relation to the demographic factors of (1) kind of institution, (2) gender, (3) level of employment, (4) years in profession, and (5) highest degree attained. Methodology. The study used causal comparative and descriptive research. The sample was administrators with positions of president, vice president, and dean at ten private higher education institutions, five each in Japan and America. The instrument used for the study was the Leadership Orientations questionnaire developed by Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal. The data were presented in tabular and narrative format. There was a 96 percent response rate by administrators in the sample. Findinqs. There was a significant difference in all leadership orientation frames in the total Japanese and American sample. However, when the subset of Christian universities was dropped from the sample, the only significant difference was in the political frame. When males in Japan were compared with males in America there was a significant difference in the structural and political frames. As presidents were compared there was a significant difference in the political frame. When comparing years in the profession, the only significant difference in the sample with less than ten years of experience was in the symbolic frame. Administrators who had served over nineteen years recorded significant differences in all leadership frames. The political frame had the most frequent significant differences as the subsets were analyzed. In all cases where significant differences occurred, the American sample had the higher mean. Implications. As American and Japanese administrators in private higher education enter into collaborative agreements they need to be aware that the rank order of preference for leadership styles is the same, and in many ways they are more alike than different. The significant difference in the political leadership frame across segments of the sample has implications as the two cultures cooperate.