Implementing leadership culture across multiple markets

One of the greatest mistakes multinational organisations make in Africa is the assumption that a successful leadership culture in one country can be replicated across every market. Leadership culture is not software that can be copied and pasted; it is a living system that must interact with the history, values, language, social norms and aspirations of people in each environment.

However, the opposite extreme is equally dangerous. An organisation that allows every country operation to define leadership differently eventually loses its identity. Employees become loyal to local personalities rather than to the institution, and customers experience different values in different markets.

The real challenge, therefore, is not whether to have one leadership culture or many. The challenge is how to establish one leadership philosophy with shared behavioural expectations while allowing local cultural expression.

Consider the example of United Bank for Africa (UBA), one of Africa’s most recognisable pan-African institutions operating across more than twenty countries.

The bank serves customers in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Uganda and several other markets. These countries differ in language, business etiquette, power distance, customer expectations and communication styles.

A rigid, identical leadership culture across all these markets would be ineffective. A leadership approach that works in Lagos may be perceived differently in Dakar or Nairobi. Yet UBA cannot afford to have twenty different organisational identities.

What successful African multinationals often do is establish common leadership principles such as: Customer centricity, integrity, performance accountability, Respect for people, collaboration, innovation, and leadership development

These become the organisation’s non-negotiable behavioural expectations. How leaders express those behaviours may vary by market, but the expectations themselves remain constant. This was the flexibility I witnessed in the United Bank for Africa’s success story as the pioneer of the expansion of Nigerian banks into African markets. Tony Elumelu, the chairman of UBA, deserves considerable credit for championing this approach and creating one of Africa’s most enduring leadership legacies.

Africa is not one market. It is a continent of diverse cultures, languages and leadership traditions.

For example, in some markets, employees expect highly consultative leadership. In others, leaders are expected to provide stronger direction. Communication styles differ significantly between Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone environments.

Community relationships and social obligations vary from country to country. Attempting to enforce a uniform leadership style often creates resistance, reduces authenticity and weakens engagement. Employees do not commit deeply to cultures that ignore their social reality.

While leadership styles can adapt, leadership philosophy must remain consistent. Every employee across all markets should be able to answer the following questions in the same way: Why does this organisation exist? What behaviours are rewarded? How are people treated? What does leadership mean here? What standards are non-negotiable?

When these answers differ widely across countries, the organisation loses coherence.

This is where my infinite stake theory becomes particularly relevant. The theory argues that people perform better and commit more deeply when they see themselves as stakeholders in an enduring legacy rather than merely participants in a transaction.

Most organisations attempt culture change through policies, slogans and training programmes. But culture changes sustainably only when people believe that their contribution has meaning beyond salary and immediate targets.

In a pan-African organisation, employees in Accra, Kigali, Lagos and Abidjan may come from different cultures, but they can still unite around a shared belief that “what we build here will outlive us.”

That belief creates what I call ‘infinite ownership’ – the mindset that employees are custodians of an institution, not temporary occupants of a job.