**5. Discussion and conclusions**

**Model 1**

*Independent variables*

Tolerance Social capital

Creativity

Power Responsibility

*Interactions*

LnGDPPPP × tolerance

LnGDPPPP × social capital

LnGDPPPP × creativity

LnGDPPPP × power

LnGDPPPP × responsibility

*Control variables*

Education LnGDPPPP Labor force Corruption

Constant

Wald

*X*2 Observations

Countries

*R*2 \*\*<sup>p</sup> < 0.05.

\*\*\*p < 0.01.

**Table 2.**

Linear regressions with feasible generalized least squares (FGLS).

−0.449\* 0.244\*\*\* 0.008\*\* −0.235\*\*\*

−0.363 697.83

67 35 0.613

67 35 0.614 *Note*: The first column of each model corresponds to the estimation, while the second is the standard error.\*

0.689

−8.012\*\*\*

2046.39

2.179

0.517 513.49

67 35 0.646

0.842

−1.436 605.84

67 35 0.633

p < 0.1.

3.906

3.407 850.27

67 35 0.613

67

35

0.696

2.214

3.606\*\*\* 1041.08

1.082

0.032

−0.221\*\*\*

0.027

−0.221\*\*\*

0.032

−0.229\*\*\*

0.031

−0.207\*\*\*

0.025

−0.182\*\*\*

0.030

0.004

0.012\*\*

0.004

0.011\*\*\*

0.004

0.008\*

0.004

0.008\*

0.004

0.013\*\*\*

0.004

0.047

0.991\*\*\*

0.187

0.123

0.085

0.347

0.399

−0.175

0.251

−0.193\*

0.114

0.184

−0.628\*\*\*

0.177

−0.339\*

0.188

−0.481\*\*

0.205

−0.346\*

0.188

−0.439\*\*

0.201

1.234\*\*\* 3.146\*\*\* 1.102\*\*\* −0.344\*\*\*

0.302\*

0.160

0.318\*\* −1.173\*\*\*

0.283

1.366

1.002

−0.027

0.096

0.118

0.078

0.557\*\*\*

0.156

0.147

0.287\*

0.157

0.331\*\*

0.161

0.286\*

0.146

−5.175\*\*\*

1.474

0.051

−0.367\*\*\*

0.048

−0.319\*\*\*

0.053

−0.354\*\*\*

0.060

−1.409\*\*

0.721

−0.324\*\*\*

0.047

0.096

1.068\*\*\*

0.088

1.078\*\*\*

0.089

1.376

0.952

1.046\*\*\*

0.093

1.006\*\*\*

0.091

0.712

3.239\*\*\*

0.645

−10.215

10.007

3.035\*\*\*

0.814

4.007\*\*\*

0.685

2.590\*\*\*

0.647

0.337

13.140\*\*\*

2.931

1.349\*\*\*

0.345

1.268\*\*\*

0.351

1.605\*\*\*

0.368

1.754\*\*\*

0.330

**Model 2**

**Model 3**

**Model 4**

**Model 5**

**Model 6**

50 Leadership

The current research integrates insights from the leadership literature and proposes institutional economics (particularly sociocultural approach) as a fresh perspective to advance leadership research, especially when we link leadership with the construction of an individual and collective identity. This study contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms through which informal institutions such as cultural values, attitudes and practices influence leadership. Although informal factors such as tolerance, creativity, social capital, power and responsibility were found to be important predictors of the decision to be a leader, their effects are somewhat complex. Our results demonstrated that the level of country development exercise a complex pattern of the effects on the relationship between informal institutions and leadership behavior. This is one of the few studies that aim to integrate the study of leadership under an institutional approach.

From a conceptual perspective, the results confirm what scholars have long pointed out the importance of sociocultural factors in the decision to be leader [8]. Our study therefore provides insights regarding the informal factors that may strengthen leadership in the current complex environments. This study emphasizes that one of the most important approaches to understanding leadership is self-leadership [12] from a sociocultural perspective. Before a person can lead others, they must be able to lead and navigate by themselves, to attain desired behaviors [94]. A more recent approach found similarity between self-leadership and authentic leadership [95], reflecting the notion whereby an individual is "the master of his or her own domain" ([96]: 293). Therefore, for leadership to flourish, it is important to consider the context in which a person develops.

**Acknowledgements**

lógico de Monterrey.

**Conflict of interest**

**Author details**

**References**

581-613

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Sebastian Aparicio1,2\*, Claudia Felix<sup>3</sup>

2 Fundación ECSIM, Medellin, Colombia

Quarterly. 2016;**27**:1-13

3 Tecnológico de Monterrey, Sonora Norte, Mexico

David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from projects ECO2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness) and 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowledge Department—Catalan Government). Also, Claudia Felix acknowledges support from Tecno-

Informal Institutions and Leadership Behavior: A Cross-Country Analysis

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75840

53

and David Urbano4

[1] Kuratko DF, Morris MH. Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Cheltenham, UK: The

[2] Chen AS-Y, Hou Y-H. The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership

[3] Day DV. Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly. 2000;**11**:

[4] Zheng W, Douglas M. Embracing leadership: A multi-faceted model of leader identity development. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 2015;**36**:630-656

[5] Day DV, Harrison MM. A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership develop-

[6] Baltes MM, Carstensen LL. Commentary. Human Development. 1991;**34**:256-260

ment. Human Resource Management Review. 2007;**17**:360-373

International Library of Entrepreneurship. Elgar Research Collection; 2013

\*Address all correspondence to: sebastian.aparicio@durham.ac.uk

1 Durham University Business School, Durham University, Durham, UK

4 Department of Business, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Practical implications can be drawn for education and business, regarding the informal factors to be studied and promoted in order to have more developed societies. Schools and organizations prepare new generations of leaders through strategies to encourage and promote rational thinking leaders, responsibility, social capital, acceptance and tolerance for diversity or complex situations. It is also important to understand how power can be exercised and leadership endorsed in various contexts. One recent approach, in line with these ideas, is mindfulness in leadership [97]. This approach suggests that leaders who navigate multiple demands develop and display certain personal and social qualities, such as tolerance [98] and creativity [99, 100]. The intention of the current work was to expand the leadership development concepts and ideas that make groups and organizations more psychologically safe [43].

Leadership is a complex and dynamic process [101], and therefore, this study should be interpreted in light of its key limitations. This analysis was conducted at country level; future research should integrate multilevel analysis [102] that includes individual, relational and collective levels [103, 104]. An individual self-concept might focus on traits that distinguish someone from others in the sociocultural environment. Relational or interpersonal self-identities are based on relationships between the individual and important others. Finally, collective self-concepts are those in which an individual defines the self in terms of membership of important groups or organizations [5]. This future research can take lessons from the sociocultural approach, specifically the cultural-cognitive dimension [27]. This dimension explains that internal interpretive processes are shaped by external (environmental) or cultural frameworks and that individual behavior depends on the interpretation of their contexts and the consensus within the group of reference [105]. Future research therefore needs to examine this topic in a longitudinal study that includes more periods of time or to use qualitative methods that may yield novel or unanticipated findings [106]. Future studies may provide more knowledge by exploring the effect of the context on leadership, incorporating the role of informal institutions, and not only trying to identify attributes that may (or may not) be universally endorsed or effective in different environments. Although leadership literature has considered national cultural contexts (defined by geography or cultural traits), few authors address topics related to micro cultures or individual identity obtained through a way of seeing the world and the context in which it was developed. Finally, due to the close relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship, to expand this study toward the analysis of the influence of leadership styles on entrepreneurial activity could contribute to the current debates on the leadership research [107, 108].
