leadership. As such, these negative relations might be even more pronounced in more collective cultures, such as Southeast Asia (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Moreover, combining our results with the findings of previous group-level studies (Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu et al., 2010), which on North American companies, we conclude that the effects of the differentiated individual-focused leadership and leadership climates appear to be rather robust (at least across the Western world). However, to further assess whether this is the case, future research could try to replicate our results in other cultural settings, for instance, by going beyond the Western cultures studied so far or by focusing on other (types of) companies. Second, we used a key informant (i.e., a top HR representative) to assess organizational effectiveness, which might evoke some concerns regarding the reliability or accuracy (e.g., Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, Park, Gerhart, & Delery, 2001). Indeed, objectively available stock market measures would appear to be the most desirable source of organizational effectiveness; however, given that most small and mid-sized enterprises in our sample were privately owned and thus not publicly listed, such data do not exist. After investigating the potential problems with subjective effectiveness data (Starbuck, 2004), prior studies concluded that subjective measures are a valid source of organizational effectiveness (e.g., Wall et al., 2004). As a further cross-validation, we were able to collect objective effectiveness data from a subsample of thirty-five organizations in our sample after they published annual reports. This objective effectiveness information was obtained from a agency that summarizes the effectiveness data of small and mid-sized companies based on their annual reports. The objective effectiveness data of these thirty-five companies was positively related to our subjective effectiveness measure, namely, to growths in revenues (r=.35, p<.05) and growths in profits (r=.38, p<.05) during the year of the survey. Taken together, we therefore believe that both prior research as well as our own robustness analyses indicates that the use of subjective measures is appropriate for our sample of small- and
leadership. As such, these negative relations might be even more pronounced in more collective cultures, such as Southeast Asia (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Moreover, combining our results with the findings of previous group-level studies (Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu et al., 2010), which on North American companies, we conclude that the effects of the differentiated individual-focused leadership and leadership climates appear to be rather robust (at least across the Western world). However, to further assess whether this is the case, future research could try to replicate our results in other cultural settings, for instance, by going beyond the Western cultures studied so far or by focusing on other (types of) companies. Second, we used a key informant (i.e., a top HR representative) to assess organizational effectiveness, which might evoke some concerns regarding the reliability or accuracy (e.g., Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, Park, Gerhart, & Delery, 2001). Indeed, objectively available stock market measures would appear to be the most desirable source of organizational effectiveness; however, given that most small and mid-sized enterprises in our sample were privately owned and thus not publicly listed, such data do not exist. After investigating the potential problems with subjective effectiveness data (Starbuck, 2004), prior studies concluded that subjective measures are a valid source of organizational effectiveness (e.g., Wall et al., 2004). As a further cross-validation, we were able to collect objective effectiveness data from a subsample of thirty-five organizations in our sample after they published annual reports. This objective effectiveness information was obtained from a agency that summarizes the effectiveness data of small and mid-sized companies based on their annual reports. The objective effectiveness data of these thirty-five companies was positively related to our subjective effectiveness measure, namely, to growths in revenues (r=.35, p<.05) and growths in profits (r=.38, p<.05) during the year of the survey. Taken together, we therefore believe that both prior research as well as our own robustness analyses indicates that the use of subjective measures is appropriate for our sample of small- and