National Leadership Style in Kazakhstan: Q Study of Patterns of Typical and Ideal Leadership in the Public Mind

Since its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has undergone a slow political and psychosocial change, which is reflected in the coexistence of the former authoritarian and emerging liberal-democratic perspectives and public discourses. Currently, there are mounting pressures for democratization of the political system, which would furnish a more diversified structure of political opportunity for all aspiring political leaders. The important issue, however, is how both old and new leaders are perceived by citizens in terms of their leadership style, and to what extent their leadership style meets expectations of the Kazakh citizenry? This study sought to answer the question, What are the characteristics of perceived typical and ideal public leadership styles in Kazakhstan? Q methodology was utilized to measure perceptions of both the general citizenry and political experts concerning the characteristics of typical and desirable leadership styles. The theoretical framework and research design were based on Little's (1985) psychosocial leader model in conjunction with best-practices leadership theory by Kouzes and Posner (2002). The resultant factorial design enabled examination of leadership styles based on three leader types (Strong, Group, and Inspiring) and five leadership practices (leader's image, communication style, ways of getting work done, leader-follower relations, and ways of motivating subordinates/followers). Through the prism of public perceptions and preferences, the study sought to discern characteristics of typical and ideal leadership styles as reflective of actual and desirable leader-follower relationship patterns. Analysis included correlation, factor analysis, and interpretation of the emergent factors. Three distinct perceptions of typical leaders (Power-Wielder, Elite Leader, and Old Communist Guard) and one ideal leader (Inspiring Statesman) were identified, and each typical leader perception was compared to the ideal in order to gauge existing typical-ideal leadership gaps. Discussion focused on the implications for leadership development in Kazakhstan, and on the utility of the psychosocial approach and Q methodology for leadership studies in general.