BusinessPundit links to a Harvard Business School item that offers a wide (though not unfamiliar) discussion on the differences between US and Asian corporate leadership.:

To a significant degree, large American firms are at
a later stage of development than many Asian firms—they have passed
from founders’ family leadership to professional management and to
capital obtained from the capital markets (rather than obtained from
government—directly or indirectly—or from family fortunes). In this
transition they have adopted particular styles of leadership responsive
to boards (often led by outside directors) and to Wall Street.
It is possible, but not certain, that Asian firms will follow this
evolutionary path. The political connections so important for top
business leaders in Asia, whether in democracies or one-party states,
are not unknown but are much less important in America. It is a
characteristic of Asian top executives that they have such connections
that are important to their businesses. In America, the chief executive
officers of very large firms often have virtually no direct connections
to top politicians—the government is treated at arm’s length and
business is done by business people.

It’s an interesting read, but nothing that would be a surprise for anyone who has spent significant time in Asia. I would be more interested in turning the issue on its head: how important are ‘connections’ for expatriate executives who work within Asia. In China, it would seem to be high - almost every foreign-business press conference or event has a government component. In Singapore, conversely, the PAP only seems to come out for major infrastructure projects or pet projects (i.e., biochem developments). Expat managers have far less need to build government contacts.

Also, it would be interesting to note how much management styles and business practices differ within countries.