I think this is a very interesting yet complex topic. To properly understand the CEO's running the organizations we should try to understand the nature of the organization providing the environment for the individual to thrive. The borderless world of today has made everything extremely complex. We can have multinationals with CEOs who are not the same nationalities (eastern origin CEO's running western companies or vice versa).
I think what matters most is the results. Whether it be through tyranny or not, the headquarters of the company don't really care as long as things are legislatively and ethically clean. The cultural norms that are part of the subsidiary of the company in a particular nation are of no concern.
Within the east and the west we have many differences as well. In the east a country like Japanese style of work differs vastly from Chinese. In the west, Anglo-Saxon models (US,UK) differ from continental European approaches (Italy, Netherlands) with more interventionist regimes.
There's too many complexities and dimensions to this argument. At the end of the day however, all the heads of companies running the show in different parts of the world do have to come to a consensus. This consensus not only involves the direction and growth of the companies but also how they will go about meeting, addressing issues and so forth (in which manner, in which country, via what platforms, and how - tyranny, no tyranny, shared goal vision, mutual trust and understanding - i have no idea). Within this group of top executives there is a certain social code is what I am trying to say. So, some conformity is there regardless of whether the firm has operations in Papa New Guinea or in Chile.
Leaders are not the same everywhere ... it does depend on country and culture. Leaders are humans and as humans we share generalizable qualities - regardless of the civilization we originate from. A leader has 24 hours just like anyone else and he is shaped and nurtured by the environment in which he chooses to allocate his time (work, family, x, y, z) and the default environment which is granted by default (his parents made certain decisions that will impact the leader). A country within itself is an environment providing certain cultural norms by which one needs to live - so the leader becomes a part of this - and the countries ideals, concepts, and ideosyncracies become a part of the leader. The only shared country is the Internet. If we spend 20 of the 24 hours on the internet then it is possible to have 2 different humans know the same language/s, have similar ideas, same sets of experiences and yet be in totally different parts of the world one in Australia and one in Peru for example. So I guess a leader is formed mostly by the environment he "chooses" to be part of.
None of these thoughts are true or proven just wanted to share some opinions.
Peace,
Jas
