How Finnish and Filipino university students in business studies perceive leaders based on visual cues

Abstract This article sets out to examine cultural differences in perceiving leaders’ visual non-verbal behavior. It examines and compares how business students at universities in Finland and the Philippines perceive business leaders based on visual cues, drawing on social psychological theories of social categorization, person perception, and the cultural dimensions of leadership and organization. A total of 32 university students of business studies participated in the study. They were presented with eight images of people with different visual expressions and reflected in writing on what kinds of leaders these people would be. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings show that both Finnish and Filipino students had similar perceptions of what kinds of leaders the people in the images might be. However, in terms of leadership preferences, the Finnish students appeared to place more emphasis on the person’s level of communicativeness and friendliness, whereas levels of competence and commitment were emphasized more strongly by Filipino students. The theoretical approach and design of the study may be applied in research on leaders’ visual nonverbal expressiveness in multicultural organizations.


Introduction
Visual nonverbal behavior plays an important role in social interactions. Besides the modification of verbally communicated meanings, this type of behavior is perceived to reflect people's intentions, motives, and attitudes toward one another (Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008;Skowronski and Ambady 2008). Visual nonverbal behavior not only refers to people's facial expressions, gestures, and movements, it also encompasses other visually perceived features, such as clothing, hairstyles, and makeup (Babad 2009). Of these features, facial expressions play the most significant role as they are associated with the ability to express emotions (Skowronski and Ambady 2008;Zebrowitz and Montepare 2008), which means that visual nonverbal behavior is central to social interactions (Barsade 2002). Dissimilar to more deliberate and controlled verbal communication, people are not always aware of the messages they send through their visual nonverbal behavior (Foley and Gentile 2010). However, other people may interpret their visual features to convey deliberate meanings, which can complicate communications and cause unwarranted misconceptions. In a similar way, visual features contribute to how employees view their leaders . Visual perceptions can influence leader-employee relations positively or negatively; this impacts the atmosphere in the organization and ultimately affects its performance Ruben and Gigliotti 2016). In multicultural organizations, employees from different cultural backgrounds may have different expectations for their leaders which may pose severe challenges for the organizations (Tsai and Qiao 2023). Therefore, leaders of multicultural organizations should have behavioral cultural intelligence, which refers to their "capability to enact a wide repertoire of verbal and nonverbal actions during intercultural encounters" (Patel and Ahmad 2018, 362). With its qualitative approach, our study endeavors to shed light on how different kinds of leaders' nonverbal behavior are perceived and interpreted by Finnish and Filipino university business students.
Previous studies noted that the construction and interpretation of visual non-verbal behaviors is very much culturally specific (Bjornsdottir et al. 2017;Matsumoto 2006). Different cultures have different conventions of visual non-verbal behaviors, leading to culturally specific visual orders that regulate these behaviors in different social roles. Visual orders, in turn, affect the way people acting in different social roles are perceived (Sepp€ anen 2006). For this reason, leaders' visual nonverbal behaviors may be interpreted differently by employees from different cultures, if those leaders work in multicultural organizations (see, e.g., Tsai and Qiao 2023). In addition, prior research on the cross-cultural dimensions of leadership and organization have shown the influence that culture has on areas such as management policy, leadership preferences, and the norms of organizational interaction (e.g., Dorfman et al. 2012;Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010;Starren et al. 2013). This may also be a factor influencing the ways in which leaders are perceived.
This qualitative study examines cultural differences when perceiving leaders' visual non-verbal expressiveness. Drawing on social psychological theories of social categorization, person perception, and the cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations, this qualitative study explores how business students at universities in Finland and the Philippines perceive leaders' visual nonverbal expressiveness and whether these perceptions differ between the two groups of students. Finland is a Scandinavian country in the north of Europe that has been independent since 1917. Prior to its independence, it was part of Sweden and Russia (Martikainen and Sakki 2021). The Philippines, in turn, is a Pacific South country that has been under Spanish and U.S. rule before it became independent in 1946 (Nadeau 2020). Even though these two countries are located in different parts of the world and do not have any historical connections, they have recently become connected in terms of employment. Currently, Finland is facing a severe shortage of employees in many professions and, as a result, Filipino workers are actively recruited by Finnish companies, for example, in social and health care organizations (Vartiainen et al. 2016).
This research attempts to address the following research gaps. There are no prior studies comparing the perception of leaders' visual communication among Finnish and Filipino business students or organization members. Because of the growing number of Filipino employees recruited by Finnish organizations, especially in health care organizations (Isaksen and N€ are 2022;Vaittinen, Sakilayan-Latvala, and Vartiainen 2022;Vartiainen et al. 2016), there is a pressing need to understand the differences as well as similarities in organizational communication also in terms of the perception of leaders' visual communication. This need is also justified by the fact that the organizational cultures in Finland and the Philippines differ from each other substantially according to Hofstede's ( , 1983 cultural dimensions theory. In addition, to our knowledge, no other study has previously combined social psychological approaches of social categorization and person perception with cultural dimensions of leadership and examined their interconnectedness in the context of management. Hence, this study provides a novel theoretical angle to the study of cross-cultural management and organizations. Finally, our study addresses a group of people mostly ignored in studies of management and organizations-namely university business students. In our view, this target group is very important, since in the future they act in two organizational positions-as leaders and as employees. Therefore, it is important to increase not only the awareness of cultural differences in interpreting visual nonverbal communication but also the culture-sensitive visual nonverbal behavior among this target group. In addition to addressing the aforementioned shortcomings in prior research on management and organizations, this study seeks to provide a practical picture-based method for multicultural organizations to reflect on and improve their culturally sensitive leaders' visual communication.
This small-scale pilot study endeavors to examine the potential of picture-based approach in this field of research. The students were instructed to review eight images of people and then to reflect in writing on what kinds of leaders they would be. The research questions were as follows: (1) How do Finnish and Filipino students perceive and categorize leaders based on visual cues? (2) Are there similarities/differences in the ways that these two groups of students perceive and categorize leaders based on visual cues?

Social categorization and person perception
We constantly categorize people, objects, and environments as we encounter them. Categorization is regarded as a basic human operation that creates a sense of order and predictability to our everyday lives and social interactions (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014). In different societies and cultures, studies have shown that people share socially constructed knowledge that is stored in social categories (D'hondt 2013;Stokoe 2012). Lepper (2000) noted that people use common social categories to make sense of everyday situational encounters. Thus, categorization can be understood as a way of navigating situational encounters and the cultural knowledge that relates to them (Fitzgerald, Housley, and Rintel 2017).
Categorization is also central to person perception (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014;Sacks 1992). The classification of people according to their social roles (e.g., their occupations) is a form of social categorization (Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue 2014). Social categories can be conceptualized as prototypes of people performing particular social roles (Sacks 1992). These prototypes also include perceptions of the typical features of visual nonverbal behavior. These features can be regarded as visual orders that, on the one hand, regulate people's visual nonverbal behavior, and, on the other hand, control their perceptions (Housley and Fitzgerald 2015;Sepp€ anen 2006).
Person perception based on social categories has dominated the literature for a long time (Allport 1954;Bartlett 1932;Tajfel 1969). However, recent dual-process models of person perception challenge the superiority of culturally available social categories. According to dual-process models, people do not unquestionably categorize others according to existing cultural classifications; instead, they pay close attention to the features of people's visual nonverbal behaviors (Fiske and Neuberg 1990). Hence, in addition to cultural knowledge and situational factors, people's visual features affect others' perceptions and the manner in which they categorize them (Balcetis and Dunning 2010;Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008).
In the context of leadership and organizations, studies have shown that employees make inferences about leaders based on the visual clues they provide (Darioly and Mast 2014;Slepian and Carr 2019;Trichas and Schyns 2012). Previous studies have demonstrated that leaders' facial expressions, gestures, and clothing, for instance, contribute to the positive or negative perceptions that are formed about them. For instance, a friendly facial expression is mostly understood to convey communicativeness, whereas a serious or strict facial expression is often regarded as a sign of uncommunicativeness. Leaders' formal attire is associated with formality but also with effectiveness and a sense of responsibility. A relaxed clothing style, in turn, is understood to communicate informality and approachability but also a lack of commitment (Bonaccio et al. 2016;Darioly and Mast 2014;Latu et al. 2019;Little 2014;Schyns and Mohr 2004). Studies have posited that employees use leaders' visual features as a basis for making inferences about their personality, characteristics, leadership qualities, and their attitude toward employees. In addition, it has been demonstrated that employees may also associate leaders' nonverbal expressions with different leadership styles (i.e., authoritarian, servant, ethical, and narcissistic) .
Following the premises of dual-process models of person perception, we understand person perception as a process by which people categorize others based on visual cues using cultural categories as resources of sensemaking. Hence, in our study, we are interested in discovering whether students coming from different cultural backgrounds and drawing from different cultural categories perceive and interpret leaders' visual nonverbal expressiveness in different ways.

Cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations
One of the most influential frameworks for studying intercultural interaction in the workplace is Hofstede's ( , 1983 cultural dimensions theory. In his cross-national research, Hofstede (e.g., 1980Hofstede (e.g., , 1983Hofstede (e.g., , 2011) studied work-related values in 53 countries. The research participants consisted of employees in different subsidiaries of a multinational company. Hofstede identified five cultural dimensions according to which national cultures can be distinguished. (1) Power distance relates to the distribution of power and whether members of organization believe that power is distributed unequally; (2) individualism versus collectivism refers to the extent to which organization members prefer to act individually rather than collectively; (3) masculinity versus femininity relates to the dominant social values (masculine: success, money, material goods; feminine: caring for others, quality of life); (4) uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which members of an organization tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity; and (5) long-term orientation versus short-term orientation focuses on designating whether an organization's actions are driven by long-term or short-term goals (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010;Starren et al. 2013). Hofstede (2011, 3) understands culture as "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others." Raunio and S€ a€ av€ al€ a (2017, 42) state that Hofstede's work, alongside other functionalist approaches, represents a realist and monolithic approach to national culture as" implicit, fundamental, systemically causal, territorially unique and shared." This kind of approach is problematic, since it understands national culture as uniform and coherent, ignoring the differences between regions, ethnic groups, different minorities or subcultures, and individuals (Maznevski et al. 2002; Raunio and S€ a€ av€ al€ a 2017). Although Hofstede's cultural dimensions and other similar models have been criticized (Gerhart and Fang 2005;Gordon and Teachman 2008), Starren et al. (2013) and Taras, Steel, and Kirkman (2011) regard approaches based on national culture as beneficial, in that they may provide some general expectations about how an organization member's cultural background may influence organizational behavior, interactions, and leadership preferences.
Other scholars and research projects have also focused on studying the relation between culture and leadership/organizational behavior. One of them is project GLOBE which has inspired scholars to study the effects of culture on leadership and organizational effectiveness for more than twenty years (Dorfman et al. 2012). This project has identified both universally and culturally desirable leadership attributes and dimensions as well as formed culture clusters based on culturally preferred leadership qualities (Dorfman et al. 2012;Javidan and Dastmalchian 2009;House et al. 2002). Project GLOBE has significantly contributed to the understanding of the intricate relationship between national culture and leadership expectations, behavior and effectiveness. However, in this study attempting to understand students' perception of managers' visual nonverbal expressiveness, we focus on Hofstede's approach, because in his approach the respondents were employees, whereas the respondents in GLOBE project were managers (Hofstede 2006). Even though, business students might be managers in the future, their current status as business students is better aligned with Hofstede's approach.
When using Hofstede's cultural dimensions to compare the two cultures relevant to this study (Finland and the Philippines), both differences and similarities emerge (see Table 1). The clearest differences are found in the power distance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity dimensions. These two cultures differ the most in terms of power distance. While Finland is characterized by a narrow power distance, a very high index for the Philippines indicates inequity in the distribution of power. Finnish culture therefore appears more egalitarian. When considering the individualism-collectivism dimension, Finnish culture is more individualistic and Filipino culture is typically more collectivist. Finally, in terms of the masculinity-femininity dimension, Finland appears more feminine than the Philippines. In the context of Hofstede's work, this suggests that values related to caring for others and quality of life tend matter more to Finnish people than values related to success, money, and materials goods; in the Philippines, the reverse is true.
Several previous studies have shown the influence of culture on many aspects of leadership and organization (Starren et al. 2013;Taras, Steel, and Kirkman 2011). Some studies show that leadership preferences, for example, vary from culture to culture (Taras, Steel, and Kirman 2011), while others indicate that certain leadership characteristics are desired or disapproved of across cultures (Javidan et al. 2006). Similarly, a number of prior studies have shown that the construction, perception, and interpretation of visual non-verbal behaviors are culturally specific (Bjornsdottir et al. 2017;Matsumoto 2006), although others have identified similarities in person perception across cultures, for instance in relation to perceptions of personal warmth and competence (Dupree and Fiske 2017;Halkias and Diamantopoulos 2020).
In our study, we examine whether characterizations of Finland and the Philippines in Hofstede's ( , 1983 cultural dimensions theory might explain how Finnish and Filipino business students perceive and categorize leaders based on their visual nonverbal expressiveness.

Methodology
Fifteen business students at a university of applied sciences in Finland and 17 business students at a university in the Philippines participated in the study. Of the 32 total students, 26 were women and six were men. Their ages varied between 19 and 23 years. The participants were final year business students attending two courses taught by the authors of this study. The students taught by the Finnish teacher were all Finnish and the students taught by the Filipino teacher were all Filipino. All students were invited to participate in the study, and they completed the assignment willingly. By focusing on university business students' perceptions of leaders' visual nonverbal behavior, this study aligns to prior qualitative organizational research interested in studying millennials' thoughts about work and leadership (see, e.g., Chavan et al. 2021).
We showed the participants eight images of people with different styles of visual nonverbal expression (facial expressions, gestures, clothing, spatial positioning within the image, age, and gender) (see Appendix A). The first author selected the set of images which were discussed with the second author. The final set of eight images was agreed by both authors. The criterium for selecting the images was that they should depict leaders with different types of visual nonverbal cues. The choice of images was guided by prior studies that show how employees make inferences of leaders' personalities and leadership styles based on leaders' visual nonverbal behavior, such as facial expressions, gestures and postures (e.g., Amah 2018; Anninos 2018; Dyczowska and Dyczkowski 2018;Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen 2003;Kilicogly 2018;Ling, Liu, and Wu 2017;Nevicka et al. 2018;Skogstad et al. 2014;Wang and Guan 2018). This body of research served as basis of selecting images with smiling and serious-looking leaders, leaders wearing casual and formal clothing as well as leaders depicted in close-ups and rear shoots. In terms of leaders' gender, four images depicted female leaders and four images depicted male leaders. The images depicting female and male leaders featured similar features of visual communication (e.g., smiling men and women, serious looking men and women, formally dressed men and women, and casually dressed men and women). Instead of photographs we decided to use portrait paintings as the starting point. In prior research, reflection on past and present paintings depicting people have been used to study and discuss both leadership (Acevedo 2011;Stedman 2008) and person perception in general (Sakuta, Kanazawa, and Yamaguchi 2014;Schenk and Stumpel 2017). We chose to use paintings instead of photographs, because detached from the lifelikeness of photographs, paintings may help participants to become more aware of the-often unconscious-ways of interpreting people's visual non-verbal expressiveness. As Mannay (2016) states, images may help people notice matters that are normally taken for-granted in everyday life.
When observing people in works of art, the spectators complete and interpret depicted gestures, actions, and other visual cues based on their experience and knowledge of social life Steier, Pierroux, and Krange 2015). Even though the situations of perceiving people in paintings and in social interaction differ from each other, prior studies show several similarities between the two processes. For example, people's facial expressions attract major attention in both situations (Oosterhof and Todorov 2008;Risko et al. 2012); facial expressions, body language, and clothing serve as basis of making inferences about real and depicted people (Brooks and Freeman 2019;Oosterhof and Todorov 2008); and when perceiving people in images and in social interaction, people interpret visual cues based on their cultural knowledge reminiscent of dual-process models of person perception (Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001;Pelowski et al. 2016). For this reason, we assume that our picture-based study design can produce relevant information about the ways in which leaders are perceived and categorized in real organizational settings.
The participants of this study were Filipino and Finnish university business students participating in one course given by the Filipino lecturer and one course given by the Finnish lecturer. Therefore, the method of recruiting participants resembles convenience sample. The lecturers (i.e., the researchers of this study) compiled a PowerPoint presentation of the leader images. The images of leaders were first shown one by one and then all images on one slide which enabled the students to observe all images at once. The participants were instructed to describe what kind of leaders the people in the images would be and justify their views based on the visual cues. The instruction read: "Observe the paintings as pictures of leaders. What kinds of leaders would the persons in the paintings be? Write down your answers and justify your views using visual elements in the pictures." Later, they had to choose which of the eight leaders they liked the most and the least. The students were given one hour during the lecture to complete their assignment. In total, 33 typewritten pages were gathered. A typical answer included a couple of visual cues and various characterizations of leadership. The length of the responses per image varied between 19 and 81 words: the lengthier answers paid attention to more visual features than the shorter ones. There was no notable difference between the answers of the Finnish and Filipino students; both groups paid attention to a few visual characteristics and interpreted them as signs of leadership. Similarly, no notable differences were observed between the answers of the male and female students. The Filipino students wrote their responses in English, and the Finnish students responded in their home language. Their answers were translated into English later.
Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data as it is regarded as a basic method of qualitative analysis that aims to provide an overall understanding of information (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007;Schreier 2014). In practice, it often means classifying the data using inductive reasoning (Krippendorff 2004;Schreier 2014). Even though the units of analysis can be single words and their meanings, qualitative content analysis typically focuses on analyzing the contents and meanings of larger units of verbal expression (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007;Mayring 2014). Hence, it attempts to gain insight into how the participants understand the research topic (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007). Lastly, qualitative content analysis may also be used to quantify parts of the data. However, quantification is not the actual aim of qualitative content analysis; rather, its purpose is to illuminate patterns in the data, and, in some cases, promote the reliability and transparency of the analysis (Krippendorff 2004;Moser and Korstjens 2018). With its qualitative orientation, this study seeks to understand university business students' lay perceptions (Pandey et al. 2021) of leaders' visual nonverbal communication.
Thus, in the current study, qualitative content analysis was used to determine how students in Finland and the Philippines categorized the leaders depicted in the images based on the visual cues provided. The categories of leaders and the visual features associated with them formed the units of analysis. First, we carefully identified all expressions related to the visual cues of the leaders and the interpretations the participants made on them. Hence, the categories were determined according to how the students described, defined, and interpreted the leaders based on their visual cues. Then, we named the categories-i.e., types of leaders-according to the communicative aspect mentioned by the participants. In addition to categories of leaders, we were interested to discover which visual features contributed to the categorization. This study also quantified the ways in which each image was categorized. However, the quantification is secondary and only serves the purpose of informing the readers about the frequencies of certain types of categorizations.
In terms of research ethics, the study adheres to the core principles of the Belmont Report: Respect for persons, beneficence and justice. All students were adults capable of comprehending the contents and the procedure of the study as well as their contribution to it. The students participated in the research voluntarily. Prior their participation, they were asked to read the consent form that indicated that they had been informed of the research topic and that their anonymity would be guaranteed. After agreeing to participate in the study, the students submitted the signed consent forms to the instructors. The data were identified through numbers (e.g., Student 1, Student 2) and stored in a secure place. The research did not deal with sensitive issues; for this reason, no precautions in terms of providing counseling, for instance, were arranged. The research follows the national guidelines for ethical principles in Finland (Finnish National Board of Research Integrity TENK, 2019); hence, no ethical review statement from the ethical committee was needed for the study.

Findings
For the sake of clarity and in order to provide the reader with a chance to compare the findings, we present the results for the Finnish and Filipino data separately. The Finnish and Filipino students categorized the images of the leaders in a highly similar manner ( Table 2). The visual cues provided by the leaders communicated similar types of messages to the students in terms of the identified leadership characteristics. In addition, both sets of students paid attention to similar visual cues, namely, facial expressions, posture, gestures, style of clothing, and the viewing angle.
However, differences in the responses of the Finnish and Filipino students were found with regard to who they considered to be the most and least positively perceived leaders (Table 3).
Because in the scope of this article it is not possible to discuss how the Finnish and Filipino students perceived leaders in all images, we chose to present the findings related to the most positively and negatively perceived leaders in more detail.

The most positively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students
Friendly and communicative leader Ten Finnish students perceived the person in Image 3 to be the most positive example of an effective leader and categorized her as friendly and communicative. They thought that she looked like an approachable leader who was genuinely interested in the thoughts and opinions of her employees. These leadership qualities were inferred by her friendly facial expression, her smile, lack of makeup and the fact that her hair was left down (not tied up). In addition, the close-up picture positioned her on a similar level to the observer, which contributed to the impression that she was approachable and caring. Approachability and friendliness were considered to be the most preferred leadership qualities according to the Finnish students: She looks like a warm and open-minded leader who cares about her employees and wants to make them feel good. Her friendly gaze, smile, natural makeup, and hairstyle communicate these meanings to me. (Student 5) I think she is a communicative, supportive, and friendly manager. Her friendly facial expression (smiling) makes me think this. In addition, the close-up and positioning at the same level as the observer make her look a person with whom it is easy to communicate. She doesn't emphasize her status. (Student 9) Table 2. Categorization of leaders by the students using images of the leaders.
Finnish students (n ¼ 15) Filipino students (n ¼ 17) The most positively perceived leaders The most positively perceived leaders Image 3 (n ¼ 10): Friendly and communicative Image 8 (n ¼ 8): Professional and competent Image 8 (n ¼ 3): Friendly and experienced Image 3 (n ¼ 4): Friendly and communicative The most negatively perceived leaders The most negatively perceived leaders Image 5 (n ¼ 9): Distant Image 7 (n ¼ 8): Anxious and stressed Image 6 (n ¼ 4): Disinterested Image 6 (n ¼ 3): Relaxed and lazy Her natural looks, smile, and friendly eyes make her look friendly and easy to approach. She looks authentic and reliable. (Student 10)

Friendly and experienced leader
The second most positively perceived leader was the mature-looking man in Image 8. Three Finnish students categorized him as friendly and experienced. He was depicted wearing a dark suit, with short, grayish hair, a neatly shaved face, and had his arms crossed in front of his chest. In addition, he seemed to regard the observer with a hint of a smile. The Finnish students perceived him to be a prototypical leader (i.e., successful and experienced). The combination of his suit and his facial expression was interpreted to communicate reliability and friendliness. However, some of the students perceived that his formal clothing style and "closed" posture (i.e., his arms crossed in front of his chest) indicated authority and detachment: The dark suit and red tie are classic attire for a leader. His hair is carefully combed, the suit is well-tailored, and the watch on his wrist is of good quality. His posture communicates determination. Based on these visual features, he looks like a competent and successful leader. However, he doesn't seem distant because he is smiling warmly. I think he cares about his employees. (Student 2) He is an experienced leader who knows how to run a company. His neat clothes, upright posture, and older age make him look competent and reliable. His facial expression is friendly, which makes him appear approachable and caring. (Student 10) I think he is a conservative and authoritarian leader who doesn't communicate much with his employees. His polished appearance makes him look like a leader who is self-confident and determined and who requires a lot from the employees. (Student 13) The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Finnish students

Distant leader
Nine Finnish students perceived the leader in Image 5 to be the most negative example of a leader. They perceived him to be distant. The picture shows an elderly man wearing a black suit and hat, looking through a window, with his back turned toward the observer. The latter signaled distance, detachment, non-communicativeness, and even authority, which the students regarded as negative leader characteristics. In addition, his bent posture and shabby black suit were interpreted as signs of indifference and weariness associated with a leader whose ideas and actions might not be up to date: The man has turned his back toward the observer, and for this reason, he looks shy, distant, and difficult to approach. He is looking through the window … so maybe he has dreams and visions, but he cannot lead the company. His black suit looks old-fashioned. All in all, this leader appears to be somebody who hasn't kept abreast of the times. (Student 1) The man stands with his back turned on us, so I get the impression that he keeps his distance from employees and mostly likes to make decisions alone. Based on his black, outdated suit and stooped posture, the man looks old. Perhaps he is tired of being a leader. (Student 8) He is a pensive leader who needs a lot of time to make decisions. Based on his posture and the fact that he has turned away, he looks like a leader who doesn't like to co-operate with other members of the company.
It would be very difficult to communicate and work with him. (Student 11)

Disinterested leader
Four Finnish students selected Image 6 as the second most negative depiction of a leader. The image showed a younger-looking man wearing a stained white T-shirt and jeans, sitting with a relaxed posture, with his arms folded on top of his head. His clothing style and posture were perceived as inappropriate for a leader and were interpreted as signs of casualness, inefficiency, and laziness. In addition, the man was depicted looking straight at the observer with a facial expression that the students thought portrayed boredom, indifference, self-confidence, and narcissism. For this reason, the man was regarded as a leader who was self-conscious, egoistic, and who did not care about the opinions and feelings of his employees: He looks like a leader who likes power and uses it to achieve his egoistic ends. He looks arrogant, selfconscious, and disinterested … his facial expression, relaxed posture, and clothes that are too casual for a leader. He isn't interested in listening to the opinions of his employees, and he makes decisions alone. I think he cares about money and not about people. (Student 2) He looks like a leader who doesn't like his job. His facial expression looks angry and bored. Untidy casual clothes create the impression that he doesn't take his work seriously, but he probably requires a lot from the employees. He is not a competent leader, and he likes to boss people around. (Student 6) His facial expression looks arrogant and disinterested. In addition, the way he sits on the chair and his dirty T-shirt and jeans make him look lazy. He seems to think he is better than other people. He might be very capricious and unpredictable. (Student 3)

The most positively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students
Professional and competent leader Eight Filipino students perceived the mature-looking male leader, wearing a dark suit with a friendly, smiling facial expression in Image 8, most favorably. The students associated his appropriate and neat appearance with success, knowledge, and competence, and his appearance generated feelings of respect and trust among them. While his competence was the dominant observable feature, the Filipino students also noted his friendly facial expression, which they interpreted as a sign of warmth and appreciation of his employees: He looks like a successful leader who has already brought success to the company. He wears a corporate attire. The way he poses makes him look like he is knowledgeable about the business world. Also, because of his face and the color of his hair, he looks like someone who has already contributed a lot to the company over time. (Student 4) Looking at the person in the image, I feel good. I feel like I could easily trust him, and he is someone I could rely on or look up to. His smile looks genuine and sincere, and the way his hands are crossed, suggests that he has everything together, and he knows what he is doing. (Student 6) He looks formal and very respectful because of his pose and clothes. His smile also shows that he is a trustworthy person. Overall, he looks like a boss who talks to his employees, cares for them and maintains proper relationships with them. (Student 12) Friendly and communicative leader Four Filipino students selected the smiling woman (Image 3) as the most positive example of a leader. Based on her big smile, the woman was assumed to be friendly, cheerful, and approachable. In addition, she was seen to be caring and compassionate and someone to whom employees could turn with their problems. However, some of the students regarded her smile as inauthentic, which suggested that she might be unreliable: This kind of employer is someone who is approachable and has a good relationship with her subordinates. This person always wears a big smile in the office and cheers up the employees. She also dresses like the average person, which makes her approachable to other people. (Student 7) She'd probably be the boss that every employee would want to have. She's compassionate and genuinely cares about her employees and the organization itself. She also seems very approachable and would really listen to your ideas and opinions as an employee. Why? She has a kind face, and she's smiling genuinely in the picture. Furthermore, she has minimal makeup on her face, which means that she's simple and not high maintenance. (Student 17) She seeks high profits regardless of her employees' well-being. She acts in control around customers but scolds and degrades employees who are not performing well. She scares me. It's her smile that bothers me the most. It's like she's faking it. (Student 5) The most negatively perceived leaders according to the Filipino students Anxious and stressed leader Eight Filipino students regarded the middle-aged man in Image 7, staring straight at the observer with wide open eyes, while grasping his hair, as the most negative example of a leader. His features, depicted close up, were associated with panic, nervousness, and stress, which the students regarded as negative leadership characteristics. His inability to conceal and control his emotions in public also met with their disapproval and was considered to reflect unprofessional leadership behavior: This shows a manager who can't adapt to change. He also looks like he can't handle stress and the extreme challenges the company is facing. His eyes and the way he grabs his hair make him look like he is panicking over something. (Student 5) He looks like a manager who is easily stressed and frustrated. The way he holds his hair shows that he is someone who gets frustrated and stressed a lot. There is also a sense of panic in his eyes. (Student 7) This depicts someone who always panics. The man looks very frustrated and is the kind of manager who is always stressed, especially when there are conflicts in the workplace. He gets angry easily and doesn't have any control over his emotions. (Student 11) Relaxed and lazy leader Three Filipino students perceived Image 6, which depicts a young-looking man wearing a casual Tshirt and jeans, the most negatively. This person appeared to be a disinterested leader who would not take responsibility for managing the business properly. His facial expression was described as self-confident and overbearing. These features were interpreted as signs of a leader who neither cared about the business, appreciated the employees, nor paid attention to their well-being: This type of employer would be someone who is laid back, who lets the business run by itself after pointing out what people must do. Based on his facial expression, he seems to be grumpy and has a "bossy" look, which indicates that he is full of himself. Placing his arms on his head may show that he is not a traditional type of boss but is more relaxed. (Student 8) He looks like someone who's always chilling or who is lazy. Maybe he looks lazy because of what he is wearing. This type of manager likes to stay in the office and doesn't have much interaction with the employees. Student 11) He looks like a manager who is not trustworthy and responsible. The way he dresses and the way he sits on the chair makes him look like he does not care about the company at all. (Student 4)

Summary of the findings
The Finnish and Filipino students paid attention to similar visual cues, such as facial expressions, posture, and style of clothing; these three visual cues were the primary basis of their categorizations. Both groups categorized the leaders in Images 2-8 in a highly consistent manner. However, the data also revealed that the emphasis on specific leadership characteristics varied among the two groups. For instance, even though both groups of students categorized the leader in Image 8 as competent and friendly, his competence was emphasized more by the Filipino students, while his friendliness was the most important focus of the Finnish students.
In contrast, the students' categorizations of the persons in Images 1 and 6 differed from one another. The majority of the Finnish students categorized the leader in Image 1 as bored and disinterested, while the Filipino students characterized him as strict and domineering. With regard to Image 6, the Finnish students mostly interpreted the leader to be disinterested and self-confident, while the Filipino students perceived her to be relaxed and lazy.
The positive and negative impressions of the students from both countries were similar. Leaders in Images 3 and 8 were perceived the most favorably, while those in Images 5-7 were perceived the most critically. However, the categorizations revealed a slightly different basis behind the selection of the most positively and negatively perceived leaders. Whereas the level of approachability in terms of friendliness or detachment seemed to matter most to the Finnish students, the level of competence, professionalism, and involvement in running the business were decisive characteristics for the Filipino students.

Discussion
This small-scale pilot study set out to examine cultural differences when perceiving leaders' visual non-verbal expressiveness among Finnish and Filipino business students. Combining the theories of social categorization, person perception, and the cultural dimensions of leadership and organizations in a novel way, our aim was to examine whether cultural background influences Finnish and Filipino business students' perceptions of leaders' visual nonverbal expressiveness. Finland and the Philippines were chosen as the contexts of the study because their organizational cultures differ substantially from each other according to Hofstede's ( , 1983 cultural dimensions theory and because more and more Filipino employees are and will be recruited by Finnish companies (Vartiainen et al. 2016). Therefore, more knowledge about the perception of nonverbal organizational behavior and leaders' visual nonverbal expressiveness between these two cultures is needed. Typical of qualitative research in general (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007) and due to the limited sample of this small-scale study, the findings of the research cannot be generalized.
The findings of the current study showed that visual cues sufficed to serve as the basis for categorizing the leaders depicted in the images. This finding is consistent with those of prior studies that demonstrated the significant role played by visual features in the formation of perceptions of people in images and social interactions Sacks 1992). Prior studies have also shown that such categorization occurs rapidly and is mostly beyond conscious control (Ambady and Rosenthal 1993;Rule and Sutherland 2017). In the current study, the students had the opportunity to observe the images for approximately five minutes. This meant that they consciously reflected on the messages conveyed by the visual cues.
The findings suggested that of all the visual cues, facial expressions played a central role in the interpretations. A similar finding was reported in other research (Hess, Adams, and Kleck 2008;Sathik and Jonathan 2013). Often the importance of facial expressions relates to their ability to communicate emotions, interpersonal motives and intentions (Barsade 2002). Our finding that physical appearances, gestures, posture and the style of clothing significantly contributed to the formation of impressions is also consistent with the findings of prior research (Darioly and Mast 2014;Hogue 2013;Schyns and Mohr 2004). The data revealed that the students reflected on the meanings of different visual cues and interpreted them in relation to one another. Hence, they did not rigidly adjust the images of the leaders to fit preexisting categories. Instead, they proceeded in a piecemeal manner by reflecting on the messages using various visual cues. This procedure seems to be congruent with dual-process theories of person perception where categorization is the result of negotiations between categorical notions and the visual characteristics of the object of perception (Gawronski and Creighton 2013;Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001).
According to our findings, visual cues were enough for participants to infer a person's leadership style. Friendly facial expressions, welcoming gestures, and a neutral but tidy appearance were associated with the kinds of communicativeness and approachability that are typical of democratic leadership (Dyczowska and Dyczkowski 2018;Kilicogly 2018) and servant leadership (Amah 2018;Ling, Liu, and Wu 2017). Strict facial expressions, formal clothing, and arms being crossed in front of the chest were, by contrast, interpreted as signs of the kinds of authority and confidence typical of authoritarian and autocratic leadership (Dyczowska and Dyczkowski 2018;Wang and Guan 2018). Flamboyant clothing styles and arrogant facial expressions were associated with emphasized self-confidence and egoism, which reflected a narcissistic leadership style (Anninos 2018;Nevicka et al. 2018). Finally, noticeably casual and shabby clothes, as well as a stooped posture, were associated with laziness and indifference, and were thought to reflect a laissez-faire leadership style (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen 2003;Skogstad et al. 2014). The Finnish and Filipino students made similar inferences of leadership styles based on visual cues, and no cultural differences emerged from the data.
In terms of leadership preferences, the Finnish and Filipino students' opinions differed from each other to some extent. Regarding the most positive and negative examples of leadership, the Finnish students appeared to place greater emphasis on levels of communicativeness. In contrast, levels of competence and commitment were valued more highly by the Filipino students. Hence, even though the Finnish and Filipino students perceived and categorized leaders' visual nonverbal expressiveness in a similar manner, they seemed to value different types of leaders' visual expressiveness. Whereas the Finnish students valued visual expressiveness referring to communicativeness, the Filipino students valued visual expressiveness communicating competence and commitment. This finding may owe to differences in the culture of leadership in Finland and the Philippines.
According to Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Finnish organizations are characterized by low levels of power distance (Starren et al. 2013). In several studies, Finnish organizational culture has been defined as egalitarian, valuing nonhierarchical organizational structures, participation, and democratic decision making processes (Lewis 2006; P€ oll€ anen 2007; Raunio and S€ a€ av€ al€ a 2017). Similarly, the relationship between leaders and employees is often characterized as nonhierarchical (P€ oll€ anen 2007). In Hofstede's dimension of masculinity versus femininity, Finnish culture is situated closer to the femininity pole, suggesting that care for others and friendliness are important values (Starren et al. 2013). The fact that these qualities are related to national and organizational culture in Finland may go some way toward explaining the finding that Finnish students most appreciated leaders whom they perceived as communicative, approachable, and friendly.
The view of leadership excellence held by Filipino people, in turn, has been influenced by both their Asian heritage and long exposure to Western practices. Taormina and Selvarajah (2005) noted that in the Philippines, similar to most Asian countries with high Power Distance Index, leaders obtain their power and influence through official positions to achieve the organizational goals. The Philippine leadership also focuses on strategic thinking, a Western influence, more so than its ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) neighbors (Taormina and Selvarajah 2005). Perhaps this explains why Filipino students most appreciated leaders whom they perceived as competent and committed.
Our small-scale study suggests that even though the Finnish and Filipino students perceived and categorized leaders based on visual cues in a highly consistent manner, the leadership characteristics communicated by certain types of visual expressiveness were valued in different ways, which might owe to their different cultural backgrounds. Hence, the same type of visual nonverbal expressiveness contributed to different leadership preferences among the Finnish and Filipino students.

Strengths and limitations
This study had both strengths and limitations. In terms of strengths, it explored an underresearched topic in leadership studies, namely perceptions of visual communications by leaders. The study design, where students perceived images of leaders with different kinds of visual expression, created an opportunity for reflection on the visual features of the leaders in relation to their communicativeness. A further strength was that the groups of participants were university business students from two different cultural backgrounds, which enabled an evaluation of whether students from different cultures perceived the visual expressiveness of leaders in similar or different ways.
Evaluating images of the visual expressions of leaders only was a study limitation since gaining an impression of leaders is not formed solely on visual characteristics but also using other means of nonverbal and verbal communication, which all contribute to the formation of an overall impression of leaders' abilities and ways of communicating in real-life situations during organizational interactions. In addition, the use of still images eliminated time-related changes to visual nonverbal behavior.
As Robbins and Judge (2016) put it, the way in which an individual is perceived can depend on the situation. The dimensions of national culture and organizational culture become intertwined in any workplace, since management, policies, and interactions between leaders and employees are practices through which national culture is performed, interpreted, and modified at any organization. During this process, national culture becomes situated and context-dependent (Raunio and S€ a€ av€ al€ a 2017). In this study, the situation was a classroom, not a multicultural organization. Hence, this aspect of situated knowledge in an organization couldn't be replicated in this study. Despite this limitation, observing people in images and in social interaction largely base on similar processes (Brooks and Freeman 2019;Oosterhof and Todorov 2008;Risko et al. 2012), and therefore, the picture-based study design may produce relevant preliminary information about the ways leaders are perceived in organizational settings.
In addition, the ideals and conventions of leadership might differ depending on which industry a business operates in (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar 2018), leading to variation in what is seen as "ideal" visual non-verbal behavior. For this reason, the fact that our instructions did not define the images of these leaders in more detail-for example, delineating whether someone was a front-line manager or a middle manager, or what field they worked in-must be considered a further limitation of this study. Since a leader's role can vary depending on their position within an organization (Starren et al. 2013), future studies should specify the organizational status of any leader image, as well as the field they are working in.

Conclusions
The current study demonstrated that the visual cues provided in images of leaders sufficed as basis for their categorization. Visual cues were used to make inferences about their leadership characteristics and personal traits. In addition, they constituted signs of the leaders' interactional motives and intentions. It was evident that friendly facial expressions, a welcoming posture, and orderly clothing were perceived positively, whereas inflexible or bored facial expressions, a posture that signaled detachment, and casual clothing were perceived negatively. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to argue that the visual nonverbal behavior of leaders is an important aspect of leadership. Visual nonverbal behavior may significantly contribute to perceptions of leaders, employees' relations with leaders, as well as the overall atmosphere in the organization and its performance, which has been reported in prior studies (Little 2014;Ruben and Gigliotti 2016;Talley and Temple 2015).
Even though perceptions of images of leaders with diverse visual expressions were mostly perceived in similar ways by the Finnish and Filipino students, there were some notable differences in leadership preferences which might owe to different cultural backgrounds. In future, it would be interesting to conduct a similar study with a larger number of participants and to combine the task of visual perception with assignments that map methods of categorization, as well as the reasons for categorizing leaders in a particular way. The use of a larger study and more diversified data might also confirm the preliminary findings identified in the current pilot study.
Even though our study was conducted among university students, we suggest that a similar study design may be used in multicultural organizations to study how employees coming from different cultural backgrounds perceive and categorize leaders based on visual nonverbal expressiveness. This kind of knowledge may contribute to leaders' multicultural competence in terms of culturally sensitive visual nonverbal behavior and may promote interaction in international and multicultural organizations.

Disclosure statement
No potential competing interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Jari Martikainen works as a University Lecturer of Social Psychology at the University of Eastern Finland, Finland. He holds a Ph.D. both in Art History and in Social Psychology. His research focuses on visual and multimodal approaches to studying management and leadership, migration and populist communication.
Tiffany A. Tan works as a Professor of Business Management at the University of the Philippines, Philippines. She obtained her Ph.D. in Business Management from the same university. Her main areas of interest are marketing management, services marketing and management, organizational behavior, consumer behavior and branding.