CHAPTER 2

Cross-Cultural Studies of Management Practices

Introduction

While it has been argued that certain management practices and styles have universal appeal and effectiveness, the reality seems to be that there are real and significant differences between countries with respect to their business and innovation systems and their preferences regarding leadership and management styles. Berry et al. argued that these differences, which they referred to as “cross-national distance,” were likely based on a wide range of factors and suggested and defined the following set of “dimensions of cross-national distance”¹:

• Economic: Differences in economic development and ­macroeconomic characteristics
• Financial: Differences in financial sector development
• Political: Differences in political stability, democracy, and trade bloc membership
• Administrative: Differences in colonial ties, language, religion, and legal system
• Cultural: Differences in attitudes toward authority, trust, individuality, and importance of work and family
• Demographic: Differences in demographic characteristics
• Knowledge: Differences in patents and scientific production
• Connectedness: Differences in tourism and Internet use
• Geographic: Great circle distance between geographic center of countries

It is reasonable to assume that each of the factors listed earlier will influence the styles and practices used by managers and the expectations of subordinates regarding the actions and behaviors of their managers; however, a number of management scholars have concluded that societal culture had the biggest impact on the management styles selected by organizations operating within a society. Research and proscriptions regarding culture and management began to emerge and proliferate as businesses around the world were exposed to globalization and their interactions with people and firms in other countries increased. One of the most popular topics was the transferability of management styles and practice across cultural divides including the transfer of Western management styles to developing countries and the feasibility of US managers importing the management practices of the Japanese firms that rose rapidly to global market leadership in the 1980s. While the initial assumption and hope was that management styles and practices could move easily and seamlessly from country to country, success was difficult to achieve. In that regard, Bigoness and Blakely commented that “[i]ncreasingly, researchers and practitioners are concluding that the exportability of management theories and practices is determined by the comparability of the cultural values between the exporting and importing nation” and also cited Erez for the proposition that “the congruence between (societal values and managerial practices) has increasingly been shown to influence organizational outcomes.”²

It may be a bit extreme to assume that societal culture is the most important environmental factor affecting management functions, particularly given the evidence that has been collected about the influence of economic, political, and legal institutions on formation, operation, growth, and survival of businesses. Moreover, the choices that managers can reasonably make regarding strategies related to the various managerial functions are constrained by available technological know-how and physical infrastructure and by sociocultural variables such as religion, education, and language. Nonetheless, societal culture, which itself is influenced by the factors mentioned previously and evolves as societies and the people within them adapt to changes in their external and internal environments, must be acknowledged as a fundamental consideration for managerial attitudes and behaviors. As explained by Deresky:

As generally understood, the culture of a society comprises the shared values, understandings, assumptions, and goals that are learned from earlier generations, imposed by present ­members of a society, and passed on to succeeding generations. This shared ­outlook results, in large part, in common attitudes, codes of conduct, and expectations that subconsciously guide and ­control certain norms of behavior. ... These cultural variables, in turn, determine basic attitudes toward work, time, materialism, ­individualism, and change. Such attitudes affect an individual’s motivation and expectations regarding work and group relations, and they ultimately affect the outcomes that can be expected from that individual.³

International Studies of Influence of Culture on Management Practices

Comparison of management styles and practices used and preferred in different countries is facilitated by cross-cultural studies of management practices and a large number of studies have tested and appeared to verify the argument that societal values do influence the selection and effectiveness of managerial practices. For example, Bigoness and Blakely provided references to a selected set of these studies that included the following⁴:

• Social loafing was found to be present in an individualistic society such as the United States but not in a collectivist ­society such as China.⁵
• A Likert System 2 (“benevolent authoritative”) ­management style was preferred in Mexico while a Likert System 3 (“­consultative”) management style was preferred in the United States.⁶
• Extrinsic rewards and behavioral management were found to be effective with workers in Russian textile factories; however, the performance of those same workers noticeably declined when “participative” management techniques were ­introduced.⁷
• In a comparison of British and French managers, the British were found to place greater emphasis on individual achievement than their French counterparts while, in turn, the French placed greater importance on competent supervision, sound company policies, fringe benefits, security, and good working conditions.⁸
• Business school students in Australia were interested in ­extrinsic factors while business school students in the United States were more interested in self-fulfillment, responsibility, and other types of intrinsic rewards.⁹
• American managers were found to value individuality while their Japanese counterparts placed greater emphasis on socially oriented qualities.¹⁰
• Profit-making was important in the decisions of successful managers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany while successful managers in Denmark were more interested in societal concerns during their decision-making processes.¹¹
• Kuwaiti managers were more likely to make business decisions based on their personal goals than US managers.¹²
• While managers in Sweden showed little reluctance to bypass the hierarchical chain of command when they deemed it necessary their counterparts in Italy felt such an action was a serious offense calling for either discipline or adjusting the organizational structure.¹³

The sections that follow provide a small sample of the many cross-­national studies of managerial styles and practices. Bigoness and Blakely conducted a cross-national study of instrumental managerial values involving managers in 12 developed countries and found that while there appeared to be universal support for the importance of several values—broadmindedness, capability, courage, imagination, independence, and intelligence—there were also differences among the countries in the level of importance that managers assigned to certain values.¹⁴ Bigoness and Blakely also found evidence that societal culture seemed to have a role in explaining differences between managers from different countries with respect to technology transfer, organizational development, and negotiation techniques. Bloom and Van Reenen conducted an exhaustive international study of patterns of management and productivity based on interviews with managers in 17 countries and concluded that not only did firms with “better” management practices tend to perform better but that management practices varied tremendously across firms and countries and countries specialized in different styles of management.¹⁵ In addition to large multicountry studies, researchers have shown a particular interest in comparing Western and Asian management styles and behaviors. For example, Weihrich compared management practices in the United States, Japan, and China using five dimensions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling.¹⁶ Culpan and Kucukemiroglu conducted a comparative study of management styles in the United States and Japan using their suggested “conceptual model of management style” that included six dimensions: supervisory style, decision-making process, communication patterns, control mechanisms, interdepartmental relationships, and paternalistic orientation.¹⁷ Yu and Yeh also examined Asian and Western management styles and found evidence for differences on several different dimensions including control, decision making, leadership style, communication style, goal orientation, and motivational style.¹⁸

Bigoness and Blakely’s Cross-National Study of Managerial Values

Bigoness and Blakely conducted a cross-national study of managerial values by surveying 567 managers from 12 countries: Australia, Brazil, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Using factor analysis of the 18 instrumental values included in Rokearch’s Value Survey,¹⁹ Bigoness and Blakely found the following four underlying value dimensions, which are presented and explained in the order of importance afforded to the dimensions by the countries in the survey²⁰:

• Most Important: Broadminded, capable, and courageous instrumental values
• Second Most Important: Imaginative, independent, and ­intellectual instrumental values
• Third Most Important: Clean, obedient, polite, responsible, and self-control instrumental values
• Lowest Ranked in Importance: cheerful, forgiving, helpful, and loving instrumental values

Notable observations from the Bigoness and Blakely study included the following:

• Managers from all 12 countries ranked the four dimensions in the same order of importance, providing some support for those who argue managerial values around the world are becoming increasingly homogenous. In that same vein, no differences in the level of importance were found among the surveyed countries with respect to the dimension that included imaginative, independent, and intellectual, ­leading Bigoness and Blakely to conclude that managers in all ­countries view these items as important values.²¹
• Japanese managers placed much greater emphasis than managers from the other countries on the dimension that included cheerful, forgiving, helpful, and loving. Bigoness and Blakely explained that this was consistent with the collectivist nature of Japanese societal culture and previous studies that had found that Japanese business culture valued cooperation, personalized and family-oriented managerial style, avoidance of public confrontation, and good work group relations and teamwork.²²
• The dimension that included broadminded, capable, and courageous was seen as significantly less important by US managers in comparison to managers in seven other countries. Bigoness and Blakely noted that this was consistent with other studies that had shown that US managers were less interested in using personal influence and assertiveness-control and preferred using a dominating style that was inconsistent with being “broadminded.”²³
• The dimension that included clean, obedient, polite, ­responsible, and self-control was ranked significantly higher as favored by managers from Brazil and Japan than managers from ­Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States. Bigoness and Blakely observed that it was interesting that managers from these two non-Western countries would place more importance of values based on “personal characteristics” than their colleagues in those seven Western countries. Of note, two Western countries, Australia and Germany, rated this dimension in the same way as Brazilian and Japanese managers.

The impact of differences in societal culture has also been measured and confirmed with respect to technology transfer, organizational development, and negotiation techniques.²⁴ On the other hand, however, there are studies that failed to find the expected national differences with respect to attitudes, work goals, or values.²⁵

Bloom and Van Reenen’s International Study of Patterns of Management

Bloom and Van Reenen completed an exhaustive international study of patterns of management and productivity based on almost 6,000 interviews conducted at large samples of firms in 17 countries: Australia, ­Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, and the United States.²⁶ The number of firms from which observations were collected varied among the countries with the sample for the United States numbering 695 firms while the number of firms for Northern Ireland was 92. Firms were randomly selected and sampled from a pool of public and private manufacturing companies with 100 to 5,000 employees and Bloom and Van Reenen reported that the median firm in every country was privately owned, employed around 350 workers, and operated across two production plants. Bloom and Van Reenen relied on an interview-based evaluation tool that defined and scored from 1 (“worst practice”) to 5 (“best practice”) on the following 18 basic management practices or dimensions²⁷:

1. Introduction of modern manufacturing techniques: What aspects of manufacturing have been formally introduced, including just-­in-time delivery from suppliers, automation, flexible manpower, ­support systems, attitudes, and behavior?
2. Rationale for introduction of modern manufacturing techniques: Were modern manufacturing techniques adopted just because others were using them, or are they linked to meeting business objectives like reducing costs and improving quality?
3. Process problem documentation: Are process improvements made only when problems arise, or are they actively sought out for continuous improvement as part of a normal business process?
4. Performance tracking: Is tracking ad hoc and incomplete, or is performance continually tracked and communicated to all staff?
5. Performance review: Is performance reviewed infrequently and only on a success/failure scale, or is performance reviewed continually with an expectation of continuous improvement?
6. Performance dialogue: In review/performance conversations, to what extent is the purpose, data, agenda, and follow-up steps (like coaching) clear to all parties?
7. Consequence management: To what extent does failure to achieve agreed objectives carry consequences, which can include retraining or reassignment to other jobs?
8. Target balance: Are the goals exclusively financial, or is there a ­balance of financial and nonfinancial targets?
9. Target interconnection: Are goals based on accounting value, or are they based on shareholder value in a way that works through business units and ultimately is connected to individual performance expectations?
10. Target time horizon: Does top management focus mainly on the short term, or does it visualize short-term targets as a “staircase” toward the main focus on long-term goals?
11. Targets are stretching: Are goals too easy to achieve, especially for some “sacred cows” areas of the firm, or are the goals demanding but attainable for all parts of the firm?
12. Performance clarity: Are performance measures ill-defined, poorly understood, and private, or are they well-defined, clearly communicated, and made public?
13. Managing human capital: To what extent are senior managers evaluated and held accountable for attracting, retaining, and developing talent throughout the organization?
14. Rewarding high performance: To what extent are people in the firm rewarded equally irrespective of the performance level, or are rewards related to performance and effort?
15. Removing poor performers: Are poor performers rarely removed, or are they retrained and/or moved into different roles or out of the company as soon as the weakness is identified?
16. Promoting high performers: Are people promoted mainly on the basis of tenure, or does the firm actively identify, develop and promote its top performers?
17. Attracting human capital: Do competitors offer stronger reasons for talented people to join their companies, or does a firm provide a wide range of reasons to encourage talented people to join?
18. Retaining human capital: Does the firm do relatively little to retain top talent or do whatever it takes to retain top talent when they look likely to leave?

Bloom and Van Reenen assessed and ranked firms and countries on “overall management” by looking at the average score across all 18 questions or dimensions. In addition, they were interested in attempting to measure, rank, and compare the firms and countries on management practices in three broad areas: “monitoring management,” which focused on how well managers monitor what goes on inside their firms and use this information for continuous improvement (evaluation and assessment of “monitoring management” was based on the average score across the aforementioned questions 1 to 6); “targets management,” which focused on whether or not managers set the right targets for their firms, track the right outcomes for their firms, and then take appropriate action when targets and outcomes are inconsistent (evaluation and assessment of “targets management” was based on the average score across questions 8 to 12, listed earlier); and “incentives management,” which focused on whether managers promoted and rewarded employees based on performance and trying to hire and keep their best employees (evaluation and assessment of “incentives management” was based on the average score across questions 7 and 13 to 18, shown previously).²⁸

The key finding from the Bloom and Van Reenen study was that firms with “better” management practices tend to have better performance on a wide range of dimensions: they were larger, more productive, grow faster, and have higher survival rates.²⁹ They also found that management practices varied tremendously across firms and countries and firms and countries “specialized” in different styles of management (e.g., firms in the United States scored much higher than firms in Sweden with respect to use of incentives; however, Swedish firms relied more heavily on monitoring than their counterparts in the United States).³⁰ Other interesting findings that transcended the borders of the countries included in the survey included confirmation that strong product market competition appeared to boost average management practices; that firms that exported into foreign markets, but did not manufacture in foreign markets, were better managed than those firms who stayed home and neither exported into or manufactured in foreign markets; and firms that were more reliant on human capital, as measured by the percentage of educated workers, tended to have much better management practices.

With respect to “overall management,” firms in the US sample had the highest scores on average among the 17 countries: 3.33, compared to an average country score of 2.94.³¹ The next group consisted of four countries: Germany, Sweden, Japan, and Canada, with scores ranging from 3.18 to 3.13. The third group included a block of mid-European countries (i.e., France, Italy, Ireland, Great Britain, and Poland) and ­Australia, with scores ranging from 3.00 to 2.84. Southern European countries such as Greece and Portugal, as well as Brazil, China, and India from the developing world, were in the bottom tier, with Greece and India scoring 2.65. Bloom and Van Reenen pointed out that most of the difference in the average management score of a country is due to the size of the “long tail” of very badly managed firms and cautioned that while Brazil and India, for example, had many firms in that category one could also find a number of well-managed firms in those countries.

Scores with respect to “incentives management” ranged from a high of 3.30 (United States) to a low of 2.50 (Greece) and the average was 2.84.³² The US score was substantially higher than any of the other countries (Canada was second at 3.02 followed closely by Germany at 2.95) and over half of the countries fell within a narrow range between 2.75 and 2.90. Scores with respect to “monitoring management” ranged from a high of 3.54 (Sweden) to a low of 2.62 (India) and the average was 3.09. The United States (3.44) and Germany (3.40) were placed second and third with respect to this type of management, while countries such as Brazil (2.81), China (2.72), Greece (2.90), and Poland (2.88) scored near the bottom. Scores with respect to “targets management” ranged from a high of 3.25 (Japan) to a low of 2.53 (China) and the average was 2.91. However, while Japan had the highest score it was closely followed at the top of the ranking by Germany (3.24), the United States (3.23), and Sweden (3.22). In addition to China, poor performers with respect to this type of management included Brazil (2.68), Greece (2.56), India (2.66), and Portugal (2.72).

Patterns of management “specialization,” or preferences for emphasizing particular types of management practices, could also be observed. For example, Bloom and Van Reenen noted:

In the United States, India, and China, managerial use of incentives (relative to the average country) are substantially greater than their use of monitoring and targets (relative to the average). ­However, in Japan, Sweden, and Germany, managerial use of monitoring and targets (relative to the average) far exceeds their use of incentives (relative to the average).³³

Bloom and Van Reenen speculated that the preference of US managers to use incentives was due, in part, to “lighter” labor market regulations in the United States that made it relatively easier for firms to terminate underperforming workers without substantial penalties and provide rewards to highly performing workers.

Weihrich’s Comparative Study of United States, Japanese, and Chinese Management

Weihrich compared management practices in the United States, Japan, and China as of the late 1980s by looking at five dimensions often recognized as the key managerial functions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling.³⁴ At the time, Weihrich noted that one of his primary goals was to determine whether US and/or Japanese managerial practices would be appropriate for Chinese businesses and he acknowledged that while a good deal of research had already been done on US and Japanese management, very little information was then available on Chinese management and what was available drew primarily from practices in large, state-owned businesses in China. He also cautioned that his profiles of predominant management practices were suggestive based on a review of the available literature and that other research results for the United States and Japan often invited and supported interpretations that were different from what Weihrich reported. For example, while Weihrich, like many others, noted differences between the United States and Japan with respect to worker participation in decision-making, there have been researchers who have found no differences between those countries. Weihrich also pointed out that external factors likely played a big role in differences between managerial styles in the three countries. Specifically, US managers were heavily influenced by pressure from shareholders to achieve “results” measured by short-term financial performance, Japanese managers operated in an environment in which the government was a close and important partner with respect to planning, and Chinese managers had little or no experience with operating in the “private sector.”

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu’s Study of US and Japanese Management Styles

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu conducted a comparative study of management styles in the United States and Japan using their suggested “conceptual model of management style” that included the following six dimensions³⁵:

• Supervisory style, which refers to the different ways that supervisors act during their interactions with their subordinates and to the different styles that supervisors use in order to relate to their subordinates (e.g., task versus relationship orientation and “participative” versus “autocratic”);
• Decision-making process, which refers to the way in which decisions are made within an organizational unit and the extent to which subordinates contribute to or participating in managerial decisions;
• Communication patterns, which cover the functions of organizational communication, including providing informational input to decisions; establishing tasks, duties, roles, responsibilities, and authority; achieving cooperation, and guiding action toward goals; instructing, developing, and changing; and providing feedback;
• Control mechanisms, which refer to the comparison of strategic goals and standards with outcomes and the processes that supervisors use to check on the conduct of operational activities to determine whether the results achieved by subordinates in carrying out those activities meet the performance goals and standards established by the organization;
• Interdepartmental relationships, which focuses on the degree of interaction among departments within an organization and the ability of departments to obtain the inputs from other departments (e.g., resources, services and/or information) that they require in order to accomplish their own departmental objectives; and
• Paternalistic orientations, which measures the level of ­managerial concern with the personal and family life of ­subordinates and the amount of effort invested by managers in providing social support for subordinates.

Data was collected using a questionnaire from top and middle managers from manufacturing firms in the United States and Japan—US firms were randomly selected from manufacturers operating in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania while the Japanese companies were randomly selected from the Japan Company Handbook 1989. Four questionnaires were mailed to each Japanese company. In general, companies in the sample were medium- and large-sized manufacturing firms. The results of their survey confirmed their hypotheses that management styles as defined using these dimensions differed significantly between the United States and Japan and that managers in each country considered each dimension differently and emphasized different sets of managerial dimensions: Japanese managers placed the most emphasis on communication pattern, interdepartmental relations, and paternalistic orientation while US managers focused on supervisory style, decision-making, and control mechanism. They also found that Japanese managers considered their business units to be more “effective” than their counterparts in the United States.

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu commented that their results confirmed earlier theories and findings regarding comparisons of US and ­Japanese management systems, including the works of Ouchi, Pascale, and ­Hatvany and Pucik.³⁶ They observed that communications in Japanese firms appeared “to be open and mostly face-to-face thereby minimizing barriers to effective information flow” and that Japanese managers paid particular attention to interactions between departments and “interdepartmental dependency and cooperation.” The openness of communications provided support for the strong feelings among Japanese managers that their units operated effectively. In contrast, US management systems as that time were described as “mostly characterized by supervisory style stressing more Theory X type, task-oriented, and transactional leadership methods” and it was noted that US managers were more interested in results than processes, tended to be less participatory than Japanese managers with respect to decision-making (i.e., “top-down” decision making was the norm in the United States) and relied on “a control mechanism based on close supervision and an explicit formal control pattern.”³⁷ The paternalistic orientation in Japan was clearly a distinguishing factor between the two countries and the study provided further evidence for the long understood belief that Japanese firms and managers were especially attentive to the concerns and activities of employees outside of the workplace. Culpan and Kucukemiroglu took specific note of the fact that in all three managerial processes specifically associated with the predominant practices of Japanese managers, “the key to the success seems to be the management style encouraging employee involvement.”³⁸

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu also argued that managerial practices with respect to each of the dimensions should be evaluated against the prevailing norms and values of the societal culture in which those practices were occurring and that managers should make the effort to modify their styles and practices to achieve a closer alignment with the cultural norms and values of their society. In the United States, for example, they observed that managers should emphasize democracy rather than authoritarianism with respect to their supervisory/leadership style given the great weight given to democratic values in American society and they suggested that US managers adopt transformational leadership virtues.³⁹ With regard to decision making, Culpan and Kucukemiroglu recommended that US managers integrate their subordinates into the process and accept more employee involvement and participation in management decision making as a means for increase employment commitment and morale and improving the performance of business units.⁴⁰ While it is not strictly necessary that employees have a “vote,” managers should make an effort to regularly consult with employees before making their decisions and ensure that employees feel that they have been given a “fair hearing.” If this approach is followed, the likelihood that employees will accept and follow a manager’s decision, even one with which they do not agree, is increased.⁴¹ Finally, Culpan and Kucukemiroglu believed that “an effective control technique for American organizations might entail incorporation of employee involvement with explicit control” and noted the apparent success of techniques such as “management by objectives”⁴² and “goal setting”⁴³ in the United States. They reasoned that this approach would tap into the desire of US employees to assume responsibility for necessary corrective actions while ensuring that they have clearly defined goals and standards to direct their work.

Yu and Yeh’s Comparison of Asian and Western Management Styles

Yu and Yeh also examined differences between Asian and Western management styles and did so using the following dimensions⁴⁴:

• Control: Asian style was described as hierarchical while elements of Western style included contracts and due diligence, flatter organizational structures, and more decentralization.
• Decision making: Asian decision-making style was centralized with a single decision maker while Western style was more corporate- or group-based.
• Leadership: Asian leadership style characterized as paternalistic, relationship-based, authoritarian, and directive while Western leadership style tended to be more participative.
• Communication: Asian communication style focused on deal orientation and the human side of relationships and personal behavior while Western communication style was characterized as “function-oriented.”
• Goals: Asian management style emphasized harmony while Western style was more process-oriented.
• Motivation: Asian management style tended to follow collectivist values while Western management style followed individualistic values.
• Power Distance: Power distance among Asian societies was higher than among Western societies, which influenced ­attitudes regarding organizational structure, control, and decision making.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Dimensions of Managerial Activities

In order for managers to learn from the results of cross-cultural studies of managerial styles and practices, it is useful to present those results in a way that matches the actual issues and activities that managers must deal with on a day-to-day basis and this approach was taken when organizing the following sections. Ideas were borrowed from many sources beginning with the five popular dimensions used in Weihrich’s comparative study of management practices in the United States, Japan, and China that was described earlier: planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling.⁴⁵ Five of the six dimensions included by Culpan and Kucukemiroglu in their suggested “conceptual model of management style” were integrated into Weihrich’s five categories—“interdepartmental relationships” as important factors for effective “organizing,” “supervisory style,” “communication patterns,” and “paternalistic orientation” as elements of “leading,” and “control mechanisms” as means of “controlling”—and the remaining dimension, “decision-making processes,” is presented separately since it is an area that has attracted a good deal of its own focused research interest.⁴⁶

In addition to the dimensions used by Weihrich and Culpan and Kucukemiroglu, consideration was given to the suggestion of Nigam and Su that in order to understand management culture, reference should be made to the human resource management policies and practices observed to be in use during the day-to-day operations of the organization.⁴⁷ Human resources practices, and the activities of the human resources department, have often been recognized as important drivers of organizational performance.⁴⁸ While discussing the challenges confronting developing countries with respect to economic progress and integration into the global economy, Tabassi and Baker commented that

with rapid changes in technology, worker’s needs, current market, and competitive environment, planning for human resources has become an important and challenging task for development.⁴⁹

One of the fundamental responsibilities for human resource departments is the development of knowledge and expertise among the workforce. In their framework for analyzing Indian management culture, Nigam and Su decided to focus on four dimensions, each of which were related to human resources management practices: power delegation; compensation, promotion, and rewards; performance appraisal; and training, development, and career planning.⁵⁰ In the sections that follow “power delegation” has been incorporated with other research on “­decision making” and the other three dimensions in the Nigam and Su model were included in a discussion of how managers operating in different societal cultures seek to effectively motivate their subordinates.

Planning

The criteria used by Weihrich to compare planning processes included the relative weight given to short- versus long-term planning, the level of participation or involvement by persons at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy, whether decisions were made by one individual at the top of the hierarchy or by consensus or committee, the flow of the decision-making process and the speed of decision making and implementation.⁵¹ Weihrich argued that planning activities by US managers tended to be primarily oriented toward short-term goals and objectives and decisions were generally made solely by the person at the top of the organizational hierarchy and communicated downward. While this approach permitted fast decision making, it often hampered implementation since persons responsible for implementing decisions had not been involved at the outset and time had to be spent “selling” decisions to those persons, who often had divergent values. Implementation could lead to suboptimal results without the participation of subordinates in decision making due to the need to make compromises in order to secure the support of those subordinates. In contrast, Weihrich observed that Japanese managers had a long-term orientation with respect to planning and setting goals and objectives and collective decision-making processes were used to solicit input and achieve consensus among both managers and workers. Decision flow was from bottom-to-top and then back down once again and while the involvement of many people in the decision-making process tended to slow down that process it was believed that allowing workers to participate would ultimately smooth and quicken implementation of decisions. With respect to China, Weihrich found a mix of long- and short-term orientation with respect to planning as managers formulated both five-year plans with long-term objectives and annual plans that focused on the immediate operational goals that needed to be achieved in order to achieve the long-term objectives. Decision making occurred within committees although final decisions were generally made at the top of the organizational hierarchy by a single individual. Ideas were generated from the top and input was solicited from lower levels. In general, decision making tended to be slow and implementation was also relatively slow even though there was input from workers and it appeared that slow implementation followed from the fact that worker participation was not treated as seriously as in Japan.

Organizing

The criteria used by Weihrich to compare organizing practices included an assessment of whether responsibility and accountability was individualistic or collectivist, the degree of formality in the organizational structure, the level of clarity in decision-making responsibilities, and the strength of organizational culture.⁵² Weihrich noted that organizational structures used by US managers tended to rely on individual responsibility and accountability and those managers preferred formal bureaucratic organizational structures with clear and specific rules and expectations about where decision-making responsibility lied. Weihrich argued that organizational culture was relatively weak in the United States compared to Japan and China and managers and workers often had stronger identifications with their profession than with their firms. In contrast, Weihrich observed that organizational structures in Japan were based relatively informal in comparison to the United States and based on collective responsibility and accountability. As a result, there tended to be ambiguity within the organization regarding decision-making responsibilities; however, this was mitigated to some degree by a strong and well-known common organizational culture and philosophy that aided everyone in grasping the “right thing to do” when confronted with operational decisions. Weihrich also observed that Japanese firms tended to have a strong competitive spirit toward other enterprises, which presumably contributed to a strong sense of collective responsibility and cooperation and collaboration in pursuing the goals and objectives of the firm. In addition, Weihrich reported that organizational structures in China tended to be formal and bureaucratic, although one found a mix of collective and individual responsibility and there had been attempts to introduce a “factory responsibility system” that delegated more authority to individual factories and even allowed them to pursue and generate profits at the factory level. Like Japan, organizational culture was strong in China; however, Chinese firms had yet to develop the competitiveness with other enterprises found in Japan.

Another aspect of the managerial function of organizing is defining, creating, and maintaining “interdepartmental relationships,” which Culpan and Kucukemiroglu explained to include the “degree of interaction among departments within an organization” and the ability of departments to obtain the inputs from other departments (e.g., resources, ­services, and/or information) that they require in order to accomplish their own departmental objectives.⁵³ Interdepartmental relationships can be regulated through formal rules and policies; however, day-to-day interaction between departments generally includes bargaining, exchange of favors, and communication regarding coordination. One suggested measure of the quality and effectiveness of interdepartmental relationships is the level of conflict with other departments and volume of criticism from other departments for failure of the department to be cooperative. In their comparative study of US and Japanese managers, Culpan and Kucukemiroglu found that interdepartmental interactions were more intensive in Japanese companies than in US companies and that managers in Japan paid more attention to issues relating to interdepartmental dependency and cooperation by, for example, encouraging open communications between departments consistent with Japanese culture preferences for group consultation and decision making.

Staffing

The criteria used by Weihrich to compare staffing practices included procedures for recruiting new employees, factors influencing speed of ­promotion, performance assessment, training and development, and security of employment.⁵⁴ Weihrich reported that US firms recruited both from schools and from other firms and employees tended to be more loyal to their professions than their employers and thus were likely to change firms frequently during the course of their careers. United States employees had high expectations with regard to rapid advancement and were subject to frequent performance evaluations with a focus on progress toward attainment of short-term results. Promotions in US firms were based primarily on individual performance and US firms were reluctant to invest significantly in training and development of employees due to concerns that they would leave and take the skills that they have learned to competitors. The absence of “lifetime employment” expectations in the United States led to high levels of job insecurity. In Japan, according to Weihrich, most new employees were hired directly from school and ­Japanese employees were intensely loyal to their companies, resulting in low mobility between firms. The traditional expectation of lifetime employment, although eroding, had a substantial impact on the career paths of Japanese employees. Slow promotion was expected and newer employees received little or no feedback during their early careers. When feedback was provided it focused on appraisal of long-term performance and training and development was seen as a long-term investment. Weihrich found that ­Chinese firms tended to rely more heavily on schools than on other firms as sources of new employees and Chinese workers had little loyalty to their firms or their profession. Performance reviews were infrequent, typically annually, and while workers typically received regular salary increases the path for promotion was relatively slow. While promotions were supposed to be based on performance, potential ability, and education, the reality was that family ties and good relations with top managers were extremely important for advancement. Like their firms, Chinese workers had their own long- and short-term goals and objectives with respect to training and development. Chinese managers themselves were beginning to get more training in preparation for examinations organized by the state.

Leading

The criteria used by Weihrich to compare leadership practices of managers in the United States, Japan, and China included the preferred leadership style (e.g., directive or paternalistic), an assessment of the manager’s role with respect to leadership of the group, attitudes toward confrontation and group harmony, and the flow of communication.55 According to Weihrich, the leadership style relied upon by managers in the United States tended to be strong and directive with the senior manager acting as the decision maker and communications flowing top-down. Individualism complicated the task of managers as leaders in the United States and face-to-face confrontations were common as leaders attempted to clarify their decisions and expectations. In contrast, Japanese managers and workers preferred a paternalistic style and Japanese managers saw themselves as members of the group with a responsibility to guide communications and interaction within the group. Leading Japanese managers emphasized on cooperation and harmony, sought to avoid confrontation, and encouraged bottom-up communication. As for Chinese managers, Weihrich reported that they led as the head of committees responsible for setting goals and objectives and making decisions. While Chinese managers did use a directive style, and communication was generally top-down, they sought to avoid confrontation and maintain harmony among their subordinates.

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu were interested in describing and comparing the “supervisory styles” of US and Japanese managers, a task that called for an analysis of the different ways that managers acted during their interactions with their subordinates and to the different styles that managers used in order to relate to their subordinates. Culpan and Kucukemiroglu argued that some of the elements that might be analyzed in identifying and assessing supervisory style include the amount of discretion given to subordinates (e.g., did the managers insist on ­handling all work problems or did he or she allow subordinates to work out ­certain issues on their own), the degree of delegation of authority by managers to their subordinates (i.e., how much direction came from the manager at the top of the hierarchy), solicitation of inputs and opinions from subordinates, the freedom of subordinates to schedule their own work, the manager’s sacrifice for his or her employees, whether supervision was “democratic” or “close,” and the relationship of the manager’s behavior to the expectations of subordinates that their efforts will result in desired rewards.

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu found that supervisory style was more often emphasized by US managers than Japanese managers and that the particular style preferred by US managers stressed on “Theory X type, task-oriented and transactional leadership methods.” Culpan and Kucukemiroglu noted that US managers were more interested in results than processes, tended to be less participatory than Japanese managers with respect to decision making (i.e., “top-down” decision making was the norm in the United States), and relied on “a control mechanism based on close supervision and an explicit formal control pattern.”⁵⁶ They also observed that Japan’s strong “paternalistic orientation,” which they defined as “managers” concern with personal and family life of employees and providing social support for them,”⁵⁷ was clearly a distinguishing factor between management practices in the United States and Japan and that there was substantial evidence to support the belief that Japanese firms and managers were especially attentive to the concerns and activities of employees outside of the workplace and providing employees with help on nonwork-related matters.⁵⁸

Supervisory styles have been integral parts of several important leadership and management theories including McGregor’s Theory X, which was based on “close supervision,” and Theory Y, which featured “participative management” as the preferred supervisory style⁵⁹; Likert’s four systems of management, which ranged from “exploitive authoritative” (System 1) to his preferred approach of “participative” (System 4)⁶⁰; and Fiedler and Chemers’ distinction between task- and relationship-motivated supervisory approaches.⁶¹ Supervisory style is also important in the “path-goal theory of leadership,” which measures the effectiveness of a leader or manager by his or her ability to motivate and satisfy subordinates so they will perform at the level required by the organization.⁶² While Bass has been more widely cited for his views on leadership, his “transformational” leadership approach calls for development of styles and behaviors that motivate subordinates to perform beyond their own expectations.⁶³

Another aspect of how managers led their subordinates that interested Culpan and Kucukemiroglu was how the managers designed and administered the functions or organizational communication, or “communication pattern,” within their business unit including “providing informational input to decisions; establishing tasks, duties, roles, responsibilities, and authority; achieving cooperation, and guiding action toward goals; instructing, developing, and changing; and providing feedback.”⁶⁴ Of particular interest with respect to this dimension was the flow of information within organizations and between departments and the identification of barriers to the flow of information. Indicators of free flow of information include the manager’s awareness of unit performance and activities that were occurring within the unit, the ease with which subordinates could get their opinions and complaints in front of top management, and evidence that managers had ready access to the information that they needed in order to make decisions. In turn, a lack of awareness among subordinates of changes in policies and directions was a “red flag” of communication problems. It appears fairly clear that effective communications and clear flows of information are important conditions to effective organizational management.⁶⁵ Culpan and Kucukemiroglu found that communication patterns were given greater weight by Japanese managers in comparison to their counterparts in the United States and observed that communications in Japanese firms appeared “to be open and mostly face-to-face thereby minimizing barriers to effective information flow” and that Japanese managers paid particular attention to interactions between departments and “interdepartmental dependency and cooperation.” Culpan and Kucukemiroglu noted that Pascale had also found an extensive level of face-to-face communications in Japanese firms.⁶⁶

Controlling

The criteria used by Weihrich to compare control practices included the locus of control (i.e., senior manager/group leader or peers), focus of control (i.e., individual or group performance), the importance of placing blame or “saving face,” and the use of group improvement strategies such as quality control circles.⁶⁷ He argued that US managers tended to rely on formal control rules and procedures formulated and disseminated at the top of the organizational hierarchy and focusing on individual performance to identify persons responsible for any failure to meet organizational goals and objectives (i.e., “fix blame”). In contrast, the control systems established in Japanese firms relied heavily on group responsibility for group performance and “saving face” rather than “fixing blame” was important to maintenance of harmony and respect for the Japanese. As part of this approach, Japanese companies relied heavily on group improvement processes such as quality control circles, a practice that was rarely seen in the United States until the late 1980s when US companies began to seriously consider whether Japanese management practices might work in the United States. Weihrich believed that China lied somewhere in between the United States and Japan with respect to control. The group leader, the senior manager, was expected to exercise control over the group and while the group assumed responsibility for pursuing and achieving group goals and objectives there was a stronger level of individual responsibility for Chinese workers than for Japanese workers. Nonetheless, as in Japan, “saving face” was important in China. Strategies such as quality control circles enjoyed limited popularity in China.

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu assessed differences between US and ­Japanese managers with respect to “control mechanisms,” which they defined to include “comparison of standards with outcomes” and the ­processes that managers used to check on the conduct of operational activities to determine whether the results achieved by subordinates in carrying out those activities meet the performance goals and standards established by the organization.⁶⁸ The variables relevant to assessing control mechanisms are similar in many respects to those used in evaluating supervisory style. One approach to control is to implement “close supervision” procedures that feature extensive involvement of managers in the activities of their subordinates and extensive interim check of ­performance against the goals set for the activities. One the other hand, managers may be willing to accept “democratic supervision” and afford their subordinates more freedom to schedule their own activities and rely on the unit to develop and follow the specific processes needed to achieve its goals rather than imposing limits and restrictions on the process of obtaining the desired final outcomes. In other words, emphasis is placed on “production” as a goal rather than focusing too much on the details of how the production process should work.

It is generally accepted that control processes that achieve uniformity and support coordination within the organization are important contributors to attaining of organizational goals and overall organizational effectiveness. It is also well known that decisions regarding control mechanisms impact the elements of the organizational design of the firm, particularly the organizational structure: tight control generally leads to centralization and tall hierarchical structures. Culpan and Kucukemiroglu noted that Ouchi had reported that distinctions could be made between US and Japanese managerial practices with respect to control, with US managers preferring “explicit” control based on setting specific and measurable performance targets while Japanese managers relied on “implicit” control built on “philosophy of management governing organizational and individual behavior.”⁶⁹

Decision Making

Culpan and Kucukemiroglu defined “decision making” as “the process in which decisions are made within the unit and the extent to which employees contribute to or participate to managerial decisions.”⁷⁰ Admittedly, there is some overlap between this dimension and the analysis of “participation” in the context of identifying supervisory styles. Some of the elements that are analyzed in evaluating decision-making processes include the degree to which the supervisor solicits inputs and opinions from subordinates, the use of processes that include subordinate participation in decision making and building a consensus among subordinates for the chosen strategies, the level of permitted individual decision-making by subordinates, and the processes used to identify and attempt improvements in processes and innovative methods and products. Suggested measures of how the decision-making process works in reality include the number of suggestions made by subordinates and the number of projects that were launched in spite of the lack of support and enthusiasm from subordinates.⁷¹ Culpan and Kucukemiroglu surveyed the literature and noted that different approaches to decision making could be found across organizations and countries including distinctions between long- and short-range orientations,⁷² results versus processes, and authoritarian versus democratic approaches.⁷³ Culpan and Kucukemiroglu were particularly interested in Japanese management styles and thus noted the great interest in the “ringi” system, which was the consensus-oriented process for making decisions, which was frequently used in Japan and often suggested as a candidate for transfer to American firms.⁷⁴

Adler also analyzed the organizational decision-making processes by identifying and examining what she considered to be the five basic steps of decision making—problem recognition, information search, construction of alternative solutions, selection among the alternative solutions (i.e., “decision”), and implementation of decisions—and, in each case, he concluded that there were significant differences in the way that people from different cultures approach each of them.⁷⁵ With regard to problem recognition a distinction could be made between cultures such as the United States in which managers are “problem solvers” and cultures such as those emanating from East Asia in which managers tend to be “problem accepters.” Problem solvers have a high level of confidence in their ability to identify problems and find solutions through their own efforts while problem accepters react more passively and tend to accept difficulties without challenge as simply being “God’s will.” Adler argued that problem solvers identified problems long before problem accepters were willing to admit that a problem existed. With regard to information search, Adler argued that persons from Western cultures were more deductive and used all five of their senses to gather information needed to make a decision while persons from Asia cultures acted more on their intuition and used ideas from their past to guide their efforts to gather information. With regard to construction of alternatives, Western cultures, which tend to be more future-oriented than Asian cultures, were more likely to create new alternatives (solutions) for problems than their colleagues from Asian cultures that relied heavily on historical precedents for guidance.

Nigam and Su analyzed decision making by assessing the level of power delegation in the societal management culture, with a ­particular focus on India.⁷⁶ They noted that the caste system and impact of ­Hinduism had both contributed to a high power distance in India and this had led to adoption of a hierarchical model in which authority was more centralized and decision making is “top-down.”⁷⁷ Power is considered to be an important managerial motivation in India and, in fact, Nigam and Su noted that “the behavior of managers in a normal Indian firm may be described as a combination of collectivism on the outside and individualism on the inside.” As a result, Indian managers are loath to delegating power and authority. Nigam and Su contrasted the situation in India to “developed cultures” where “decentralized power provides more motivation to employees”⁷⁸ and cited studies that showed that employee participation in decision making and strategic planning processes had a positive impact on employee performance, motivation and confidence.⁷⁹

Motivation

While “motivation” is not one of the managerial functions typically identified as among the most important, there is ample evidence that the most effective managers are actively engaged in improving employee performance and motivating employees by understanding and attempt to meet their needs and expectations.⁸⁰ Motivation is one of the key challenges of human resources management and researchers have observed that while motivational practices do not directly influence organizational performance, they do influence human capital, which, in turn, does have a major impact on organizational performance.⁸¹ There are a number of different human resources tools and practices that can be categorized as elements of “motivation” including compensation, promotion and rewards, performance appraisals, training and development, and career planning.

Adler examined a number of the well-known motivation theories that had originated in the United States including theories proposed by Maslow, McClelland, Herzberg, and Vroom.⁸² Adler argued that security is more important than self-actualization as a motivating factor in countries like China and Japan that have a higher level of uncertainty avoidance. On the other hand, in countries where there is a high need for achievement or that have a higher score on the masculinity dimension, people are more likely to be driven to produce and comfortable with taking on more risk as opposed to worrying about avoiding uncertainty. Adler pointed out that while there was a certain logical validity to Vroom’s well-known “expectancy theory,” which is based on the proposition that when firms suitably reward their employees those employees will be more likely to conduct themselves in ways that ensure that they will receive those rewards; as a practical matter, cultural factors will play an important part in determining whether a specific type of reward system will have the desired motivational effect.⁸³ In addition, there are differences between cultures with regard to the amount of control that persons believe that they have over their environment and these differences should also be taken into account when designing a reward system. For example, managers and employees in the United States tend to have a stronger belief that they can control the rewards they receive from their work through the amount of effort that they spend on their jobs. In that situation, a reward system based on productivity may be appropriate and effective. On the other hand, however, a productivity-based reward system may not have the desired impact with managers and employees from Hong Kong who tend to see the likelihood of their success in work activities as a combination of their own efforts and luck (“joss”). Japan offered still another dimension with respect to motivation given that harmony with and among work colleagues is so important that employees may be uninterested in participating in a reward system that might result in him or her gaining an advantage (e.g., a promotion) that causes separation from those colleagues.

It is generally agreed that compensation is one of the most important methods for motivating employees and may be directed toward individual goals and/or organizational objectives. Compensation packages include both monetary and nonmonetary benefits and researchers such as Minbaeva have suggested that companies adopt strategically planned compensation systems that include the base salary, flexible pay, and benefits allocated in a selective fashion in order to better motivate employees lead them toward effective performance.⁸⁴ Many studies have provided support for the notion that societal culture plays a big role in the motivational impact of the various compensation and reward tools. For ­example, in some cultures money is a very strong motivating factor⁸⁵ while in other countries money was not as important as instant and personal recognition, status, a pleasurable job experience, and programs that encouraged personal well-being (e.g., maternity leaves, sabbaticals, subsidies for medical care, and housing and educational programs).⁸⁶ In general, the research seems to indicate that money-based compensation elements—basic salary, merit pay, bonuses, and profit sharing—tend to have a greater impact in more individualistic societies⁸⁷ while employees in collectivist societies prefer, and have come to expect, the support associated with a long-term relationship with their employer that includes extensive involvement by employers in the personal lives and well-being of members of their workforces.

Nigam and Su also observed that “collectivist and individualist cultures also give rise to different kinds of reward schemes” and that “special recognition for one employee may not be an effective idea in collective culture.”⁸⁸ Acknowledging that rewards based on individual performance, such as bonuses and stock options, are good motivators in individualists cultures and generally enhance firm performance, Nigam and Su suggested that a different approach was appropriate for firms in collectivist cultures. In India, for example, distribution of rewards is based on a philosophy of equality and managers and workers have generally been willing to accept that raises and promotions would be based on loyalty and seniority as part of the overall bargain of lifetime employment.⁸⁹ This approach to determination and distribution of rewards tends to encourage cooperation rather than competition among workers and also means that relatively little attention is paid to formal objective appraisal systems that are used in individualistic countries to measure performance in order to determine rewards and establish career paths and training objectives for employees.⁹⁰

Muczyk and Holt also emphasized the importance of taking regional cultural characteristics into account when designing and administering performance management and reward programs.⁹¹ They noted, for ­example, that “leaders in the Middle East would be best served if rewards were linked to measures of group or organizational performance” but that “[i]n Europe, leaders would want to link rewards to individual outcomes rather than to organizational outcomes.” Japan presented an interesting special case in their minds since they found that rewards and incentives did not appear to be that important to employees of Japanese organizations and that they tend to take the required actions not to be “rewarded” but simply because it was the right thing to do.

In Mexico it can be problematic to attempt to motivate Mexican workers using rewards systems that are based on their own actions and performance since many Mexican workers believe that events in their lives are the result of forces beyond their control. Work is often seen primarily as the means for providing for the needs of the worker and his or her family rather than as a path for pursuit of individual achievement. Placed in the framework of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, most Mexican workers are most concerned with their current survival and livelihood rather than higher order needs such as self-actualization, achievement, and status. This is not surprising given the difficult economic conditions in ­Mexico and relatively low standard of living and dictates that ­compensation systems for many workers be geared toward short-term incentives and goals, such as meeting daily production quotas and satisfying monthly requirements for regular daily attendance.⁹² Use of variable compensation programs may also be problematic in Mexico because they can create “social distance among employees” and as a rule Mexican employees, even though they are often struggling to get by, prefer a congenial work environment as opposed to the chance to make more money in a ­compensation program that set employees up as competitors of one another.⁹³ Variable compensation programs are also inconsistent with the high uncertainty avoidance in Mexico, which leads employees to dislike unstable and ambiguous situations such as not knowing how much they will be paid and when payment will be received.

While economic conditions in Mexico dictate that cash compensation, generally based on simple short-term payment systems, is the primary motivational factor for Mexican workers, companies often provide additional benefits such as recreational facilities, on-site health care facilities for workers and their families, free meals, and, in some instances, small loans to help workers and their families get through unforeseen emergencies. These benefits are seen as part of the paternalistic role that Mexican firms play with respect to their workers and help to build a sense of family within the firm. The viability of performance-based compensation arrangements in Mexico is undermined by legal requirements that workers be paid Christmas bonuses regardless of productivity.⁹⁴

Performance appraisal is slowly but surely becoming an important part of human resources management as companies realize that appraisal systems can be a useful tool in improving overall company performance by motivating well-performing employees and creating strategies for improving the skills of laggards. There are, however, a number of challenges associated with performance appraisal including selecting the methods used to evaluate performance and deliver the results to employees. In addition, consideration must be given to cultural context and Nigam and Su observed that researchers have found that “explaining, formal, objective and individual appraisal methods are more accepted in individualist cultures like North America, which encourage goal achievement; on the other hand, in collectivist cultures like India use of informal, subjective appraisal is more popular.”⁹⁵ In fact, several researchers have noted that performance appraisal methods in India are crude or nonexistent and when appraisals are carried out, they are limited only to a certain level of employees.⁹⁶

Nigam and Su defined training and development “as a course of action for developing work-related skills and awareness in employees with the intention of making the firm’s performance more effective.”⁹⁷ Training and development contributes to firm performance by improving the skills and motivation of employees. In addition, training and development can be used to bolster control and coordination within large organizations with widely dispersed business units. It has been argued that training and development is most effective when it is closely aligned with the goals of the firm and training and development activities should focus on the skills needed to achieve those goals. Researchers such as Chatterjee and Aycan have observed that training and development has not been effective in developing the skills and values of employees in developing countries such as India and that training and development in collectivist countries such as India is often used to increase loyalty to the company as opposed to improving personal skills.⁹⁸ Another issue in developing countries is that selection to participating in training programs is based not on the requirements of the company but on favoritism (i.e., employees with good relationships with their superiors are more likely to be chosen for training programs).

¹ Berry, H., M.F. Guillen, and N. Zhou. December 2010. “An Institutional Approach to Cross-national Distance.” Journal of International Business Studies 41, pp. 1460–80. Berry et al. also provided a bibliography of theoretical sources for each dimension in the institutional literature and examples of empirical studies on each dimension in the international business literature.

² Bigoness, W.J., and G. Blakely. 1996. “A Cross-National Study of Managerial Values.” Journal of International Business Studies 27, no. 4, pp. 739–752, 739.

³ Deresky, H. 2013. International Management: Managing across Borders and Cultures, Text and Cases, pp. 8th ed. pp. 91–92.

⁴ Bigoness, W.J., and G. Blakely. 1996. “A Cross-National Study of Managerial Values.” Journal of International Business Studies 27, no. 4, pp. 739–752,
739–741.

⁵ Earley, P.C. 1989. “Social Loafing and Collectivism.” Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 556–581.

⁶ Morris, T., and C. Pavett. 1992. “Management Style and Productivity in Two Cultures.” Journal of International Business Studies 23, no. 1, pp. 169–179.

⁷ Welsh, D., F. Luthans, and S. Sommer. 1993. “Managing Russian Factory Workers: The Impact of U.S.-based Behavioral and Participative Techniques.” Academy of Management Journal 36, no. 1, pp. 58–79.

⁸ Kanungo, R., and R. Wright. 1983. “A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Managerial Job Attitudes.” Journal of International Business Studies 13, no. 2, pp. 115–29.

⁹ Dowling, P., and T. Nagel. 1986. “Nationality and Work Attitudes: A Study of Australian and American Business Majors.” Journal of Management 12, no. 1, pp. 121–28.

¹⁰ Howard, A., K. Shudo, and M. Umeshima. 1983. “Motivation and ­Values among Japanese and American Managers.” Personal Psychology 36, no. 4, pp. 883–98.

¹¹ Bass, B.M., and L.D. Eldridge. 1973. “Accelerated Managers’ Objectives in Twelve Countries.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 12, no. 2, pp. 158–71.

¹² Yasin, M.M., T. Zimmerer, and R.F. Green. 1989. “Cultural Values as Determinants of Executive Attitudes.” International Journal of Value-Based Management 2, no. 2, pp. 35–47.

¹³ Laurent, A. 1983. “The Cultural Diversity of Western Management Conceptions.” International Studies of Management and Organization 8, nos. (1–2), pp. 75–96.

¹⁴ Bigoness, W.J., and G. Blakely. 1996. “A Cross-National Study of Managerial Values.” Journal of International Business Studies 27, no. 4, pp. 739–752, 739.

¹⁵ Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. Winter 2010. “Why Do Management Practices Differ Across Firms and Countries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 1, pp. 203–24.

¹⁶ Weihrich, H. March/April 1990. “Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China.” Industrial Management, pp. 3–7.

¹⁷ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

¹⁸ Pei-Li Yu and Quey-Jen Yeh. N.d. “Asian and Western Management Styles, Innovative Culture and Professionals’ Skills.” http://scribd.com/doc/61439046/HR-Abstracts (accessed December 31, 2018).

¹⁹ Bigoness, W.J., and G.L. Blakely. 1996. “A Cross-National Study of Managerial Values.” Journal of International Business Studies 27, no. 4, pp. 739–752, 739. With respect to the 18 instrumental values, see Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

²⁰ Bigoness, W.J., and G.L. Blakely. 1996. “A Cross-National Study of Managerial Values.” Journal of International Business Studies 27, no. 4, pp. 739–752, 748.

²¹ Id. (citing also Elizur, D., I. Borg, R. Hunt, and I. Beck. 1991. “The Structure of Work Values: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 12, no. 1, pp. 21–38). (agreement among workers in eight countries that achievement and performing interesting work were important motivating factors).

²² Id. at 749 (citing Beer, M., S. Marsland, and B. Spector. 1981. “Note on Japanese Management and Employment Systems.” Harvard Business School Case Study, pp. 9–48).

²³ Id. (citing also Whitely, W., and G. England. 1980. “Variability in ­Common Dimensions of Managerial Values due to Value Orientation and Country ­Differences.” Personal Psychology 33, no. 1, pp. 77–78; and Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory.” In Theories in Intercultural Communication, eds. Y.Y. Kim and W. Gudykunst, 213–235. ­Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

²⁴ Kedia, B.L., and R.S. Bhagat. 1988. “Cultural Constraints on the Transfer of Technology across Nations: Implications for Research in International and Comparative Management.” Academy of Management Review 13, no. 4, pp. 559–71; Jaeger, A.M. 1986. “Organizational Development and National Culture: Where’s the Fit?” Academy of Management Review 11, no. 1, pp. 178–90; and Shenkar, O., and S. Ronen. 1987. “The Cultural Context of Negotiation: The Implications of Chinese Interpersonal Norms.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences 23, no. 2, pp. 263–75.

²⁵ Harpaz, I. 1990. “The Importance of Work Goals: An International Perspective.” Journal of International Business Studies 21, no. 1, pp. 75–93 (no significant difference in work values of workers from seven industrialized countries); Schwind, H.F., and R. Peterson. 1985. “Shifting Values in the Japanese Management System.” International Studies of Management and Organization 15, no. 2, pp. 60–74. (Japanese students training to be managers in the United States had values more similar to US students than Japanese managers); and Ralston, D.A., D.J. Gustafson, P.M. Elsass, F. Cheung, and R.H. Terpstra. 1992. “Eastern ­Values: A Comparison of Managers in the United States, Hong Kong, and the People’s Republic of China.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77, no. 5, pp. 664–71 (greater individual variance than between-country variance in study of values of managers from the United States, Hong Kong, and China).

²⁶ Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. Winter 2010. “Why Do Management ­Practices Differ Across Firms and Countries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 1, pp. 203–24.

²⁷ Id. at 205–208 includes a discussion of the research methodology. See also Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. “New Approaches to Surveying Organizations.” http://stanford.edu/~bloom/Surveying_AER.pdf A full set of questions for each dimension appears in Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. 2006. “Measuring and Explaining Management Practices across Firms and Countries.” Centre for ­Economic Performance Discussion Paper 716.

²⁸ Bloom and Van Reenen noted that the chosen areas were similar to those emphasized by other researchers such as Ichinowski, C., K. Shaw, and G. ­Prenushi. 1997. “The Effects of Human Resource Management: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines.” American Economic Review, pp. 291–313; and Black, S., and L. Lynch. 2001. “How to Compete: The Impact of Workplace Practices and Information Technology on Productivity.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83, no. 3, pp. 434–45. They also noted the work of Bertrand and Schoar that focused on the management styles of chief executive and chief financial officers and thus provided insight into another area, “strategic management,” which is particular relevant for managers at the top of the organizational hierarchy. See Bertrand, M., and A. Schoar. 2003. “Managing with Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm Policies.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 1169–208.

²⁹ Bloom, N., and J. Van Reenen. Winter 2010. “Why Do Management ­Practices Differ across Firms and Countries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 1, pp. 203–224, 204.

³⁰ Id. at 205.

³¹ Id.

³² Id.

³³ Id.

³⁴ Weihrich, H. March/April 1990. “Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China.” Industrial Management, pp. 3–7.

³⁵ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

³⁶ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42. (citing Hatvany, N., and V. Pucik. 1981. “An ­Integrated ­Management System: Lessons from the Japanese Experience.” Academy of ­Management Review 6, pp. 469–80; Pascale, R. 1978. “Communications and Decision-making: Cross-cultural Comparisons.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp. 91–110; and Ouchi, W. 1981. Theory Z: How Can American Business Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

³⁷ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

³⁸ Id.

³⁹ Tichy, N., and D. Ulrich. 1984. “The Leadership Challenge—A Call for the Transformational Leader.” Sloan Management Review 26, no. 1, pp. 59–60.

⁴⁰ With regard to a similar impact on employee commitment and unit performance among Japanese firms, see Hatvany, H., and V. Pucik. 1981. “An Integrated Management System: Lessons from the Japanese Experience.” Academy of Management Review 6, no. 3, pp. 469–80.

⁴¹ See Rohlen, T. 1974. For Harmony and Strength: Japanese White-collar Organization in Anthropological Perspective, 308. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (managers should not “... decide until others who will be affected have had sufficient time to offer their views, feel they have been fairly heard, and are willing to support the decision even though they may not feel it’s the best one”).

⁴² Drucker, P. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper; and Carroll, S.J., and H.L. Tosi. 1973. Management by Objectives: Application and Research. New York, NY: Macmillan.

⁴³ Locke, E.A., and G. Latham. 1984. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

⁴⁴ Pei-Li Yu and Quey-Jen Yeh. N.d. “Asian and Western Management Styles, Innovative Culture and Professionals’ Skills.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/61439046/HR-Abstracts (accessed December 31, 2018).

⁴⁵ Weihrich, H. March/April 1990. “Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China.” Industrial Management, pp. 3–7.

⁴⁶ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

⁴⁷ Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus ­Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 122.

⁴⁸ Woodard, N., and D. Saini. 2006. “Diversity Management Issues in USA and India: Some Emerging Perspectives.” In Future of Work: Mastering Change. eds. P. Singh, J. Bhatnagar and A. Bhandarker, New Delhi, India: Excel Books.

⁴⁹ Tabassi, A.A., and A. Bakar. 2009. “Training, Motivation, and Performance: The Case of Human Resource Management in Construction Projects in Mashhad, Iran.” International Journal of Project Management 27, no. 5, pp. 471–80.

⁵⁰ Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus ­Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 126.

⁵¹ Weihrich, H. March/April 1990. “Management Practices in the United States, Japan and the People’s Republic of China.” Industrial Management, pp. 3–7.

⁵² Id.

⁵³ Id.

⁵⁴ Id.

⁵⁵ Id.

⁵⁶ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

⁵⁷ Id.

⁵⁸ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

⁵⁹ McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

⁶⁰ Likert, R. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. In Likert’s model, System 2 was “benevolent authoritative” and System 3 was “consultative.”

⁶¹ Fiedler, F., and M. Chemers. 1974. Leadership and Effective Management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

⁶² House, R.J., and T.R. Mitchell. 1974. “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership.” ­Journal of Contemporary Business 3, no. 4, pp. 81–97.

⁶³ Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

⁶⁴ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

⁶⁵ See, e.g., Lewis, P. 1975. Organization Communications: Essence of Effective Management. Columbus, OH: Grid.

⁶⁶ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42. (citing Pascale, R.T. 1978. “Communications and Decision-making: Cross-Cultural Comparisons.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp. 91–110).

⁶⁷ Id.

⁶⁸ Id.

⁶⁹ Id. (citing Ouchi, W. 1981. Theory Z—How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

⁷⁰ Culpan, R., and O. Kucukemiroglu. 1993. “A Comparison of US and ­Japanese Management Styles and Unit Effectiveness.” Management International Review 33, pp. 27–42.

⁷¹ Id.

⁷² Ouchi, W. 1981. Theory Z—How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

⁷³ Likert, R. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

⁷⁴ See, e.g., Pascale, R.T. 1978. “Communications and Decision-making: Cross-cultural Comparisons.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp. 91–110; Rohlen, T. 1974. For Harmony and Strength. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; and Vogel, E. 1979. Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

⁷⁵ Adler, N. 1991. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 14–178, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Co.

⁷⁶ R. Nigam and Z. Su, “Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective,” Journal of CENTRUM ­Cathedra, 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33.

⁷⁷ Id. at 126.

⁷⁸ Id. at 126 (citing Chatterjee, S. 2007. “Bridging the Gap between Potential and Performance: The Challenges of Indian Management.” In Asian Management in Transition: Emerging Themes, eds. S. Chatterjee and A. Nankervis, 83. London: Palgrave Macmillan).

⁷⁹ Wagner, J. 1994. “Participation’s Effect on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence.” Academy of Management Review 19, pp. 312–31; Kim, S. 2002. “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: ­Lessons for Management Leadership.” Public Administration Review 62, no. 2, pp. 231–41.

⁸⁰ Cameron, K.S., and D. Whetten. 1983. “A Model for Teaching Management Skills.” Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 8, no. 2, pp. 21–27.

⁸¹ Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus ­Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 125. (citing Dimba, B., P. K’Obonyo, and R. Kiraka. 2008. The Effect of Strategic Human Resource Management ­Practices on Organizational Performance of Manufacturing Multinational Companies in Kenya: The Mediating Role of Employee Motivation. Strathmore University, Faculty of Commerce). With respect to the relationship between human resources activities and motivating employees, see also Boudreau, J. 1998. “Strategic Human Resource Management Measures: Key Linkages and the People Vantage Model.” Working Paper No. 28. Cornell University, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies; Nadler, D., and E. Lawler III. 1977. “Motivation: A ­Diagnostic Approach.” In Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations, eds. J. Hackman, E. Lawler III and L. Porter, 26–38, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; and Park, H., H. Mitsuhashi, C. Fey and I. Bjorkman, “The Effect of Human Resource Management Practices on Japanese MNC Subsidiary Performance—A Partial Mediating Model.” Working Paper No. 3, St Petersburg, Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics.

⁸² Adler, N. 1991. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Co, pp. 14–178. Adler examined many of the same US-based theories that Hofstede cited during his discussion of the applicability of American motivational theories to organizations rooted in different societal cultures in Hofstede, G. 1980. “Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad.” Organization Dynamics 9, no. 1, pp. 42–63.

⁸³ See Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. The expectancy Theory makes no assumption regarding the preferred form of reward and thus rewards may take a number of different forms based on the societal culture (i.e., money, promotion, recognition etc.).

⁸⁴ Minbaeva, D.B. 2008. “HRM Practices Affecting Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation of Knowledge Receivers and Their Effect on intra-MNC Knowledge Transfer.” International Business Review 17, no. 6, pp. 703–13 (cited in Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of CENTRUM ­Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 126).

⁸⁵ Bock, G., R. Zmud, Y. Kim, and J. Lee. 2005. “Behavioral Intention ­Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces and Organizational Climate.” MIS Quarterly 29, no. 1, pp. 87–112.

⁸⁶ Nelson, B. 1996. 1001 Ways to Reward Employees. New York, NY: Workman; J. Lang, “Human Resources in India: Retaining and Motivating Staff in a Lufthansa Subsidiary.” Compensation Benefits Review 40, pp. 56–62; Aycan, Z. 2005. “The Interplay between Cultural and Institutional/Structural Contingencies in Human Resource Management Practices.” International Journal of Human Resource ­Management 16, no. 7, pp. 1083–119; and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “Human Resource Management in India: ‘Where from’ and ‘Where to?’” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 15, no. 2, pp. 92–103.

⁸⁷ Chiu, R., V. Luk, and T. Tang. 2002. “Retaining and Motivating ­Employees: Compensation Preferences in Hong Kong and China.” Personnel Review 31, no. 4, pp. 402–31.

⁸⁸ Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus ­Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 126.

⁸⁹ Ramamoorthy, N., A. Gupta, R. Sardessai, and P. Flood. 2005. “Individualism / Collectivism and Attitudes Towards Human Resource Systems: A Comparative Study of American, Irish and Indian MBA Students.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 16, no. 5, pp. 852–69.

⁹⁰ Nigam, R., and Z. Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–33, 127.

⁹¹ Muczyk, J.P., and D.T. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4, pp. 277–86, 283–84. (citing Nadler, N. 2002. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern).

⁹² Resource for Business Management, “Comparative Motivation in Mexico: Management in Focus.” https://coursehero.com/file/p7vjbq5q/Comparative-Management-in-Focus-Motivation-in-Mexico-see-slide-11-11-11-12-To/ (accessed December 31, 2018).

⁹³ Id.

⁹⁴ Id.

⁹⁵ Nigam, R., and S. Zhang. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of ­CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no.1, pp. 121–33, 127 (citing Stone, D.L., E. Stone-Romero, and K. Lukaszewski. 2007. “The Impact of Cultural Values on The Acceptance and Effectiveness of Human Resource Management Policies and Practices.” Human Resource Management Review 17, no. 2, pp. 152–65).

⁹⁶ Chatterjee, S.R. 2007. “Human Resource Management in India: ‘Where from’ and ‘Where to?’” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 15, no. 2, pp. 92–103; Mendonca, M., and R. Kanungo. 1990 “Performance Management in Developing Countries.” In Management in Developing Countries, eds. R. Kanungo and A. Jaeger, 223–251. London, UK: Routledge.; Baruch, Y., and P. Budhwar. 2008. “A Comparative Study for Career Practices for Management Staff in India and Britain.” International Business Review 15, no. 1, pp. 84–101; and Rao, A. 2007. “Effectiveness of Performance Management Systems: An Empirical Study in Indian Companies.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18, no. 10, pp. 1812–40.

⁹⁷ Nigam, R., and Zhang, Su. 2011. “Management in Emerging versus Developed Countries: A Comparative Study from an Indian Perspective.” Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra 4, no. 1, pp. 121–133, 127.

⁹⁸ Aycan, Z. 2005. “The Interplay between Cultural and Institutional/Structural Contingencies in Human Resource Management Practices.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 16, no. 7, pp. 1083–119; and Chatterjee, S.R. 2007. “Human Resource Management in India: ‘Where from’ and ‘Where to?’” Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 15, no. 2, pp. 92–103.