Societal Culture and Leadership in
Mexico—A Portrait of Change
This chapter describes an analysis of societal culture and leadership in Mexico based on data from the GLOBE Project and other relevant sources. Although Mexico is a country with distinct regional cultures, strong unifying socioeconomic and political processes throughout Mexican history have created important cultural features shared by members of Mexican society that make an overall analysis meaningful. These features include a common language, a shared mestizo (Spanish/Indian) heritage, and a predominant religion.1 These important factors are a legacy of Mexico's history—its indigenous past, the early Spanish conquest and colonial period of Mexico, a series of national revolutions, and a complex evolving relationship with the United States. In the later part of the 20th century, Mexicans have struggled to change their economic structure to respond to globalization, and to forge a more democratic society. All these influences and processes have formed the nation and culture that is Mexico today. This chapter attempts to describe this culture and how it explains the image Mexicans currently possess of outstanding leadership.
The chapter begins with a description of the major eras of Mexican history that have influenced its current culture, concluding with a portrait of Mexico today in a state of change. This historical description is designed to highlight the development of Mexican cultural values over time. The most important cultural values emanating from the historical description are then summarized. This is followed by two literature reviews. The first review surveys published academic books and articles from the United States and Mexico describing research on management and leadership in Mexico. The second review provides a media analysis of over 200 articles focusing on leadership in Mexico from five popular publications in Mexico. The methodology of GLOBE research in Mexico is then described.
The empirical results of the research project are then presented. Our approach made use of several information sources to triangulate an accurate picture of what most Mexican citizens view as outstanding leadership. This begins with a description of the results of semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with Mexican managers and professionals and ethnographic interviews with Mexican empresarios (entrepreneur/managers).2 This is followed by a description of the GLOBE dimensions of national culture in Mexico with comparisons to other GLOBE countries. Then the GLOBE quantitative results on culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (CLTs) in Mexico are presented and compared with results for other Latin American countries and other GLOBE countries. A short section follows describing the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research. The chapter ends with an integration of the quantitative and qualitative information obtained in the form of traditional and emerging themes for leadership and culture in Mexico.
1. MEXICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE
The cultural roots of leadership in Mexico are deeply imbedded in more than 500 years of history. The following historical description is designed to highlight the development of important societal values and patterns of behavior over time. The description is also designed to demonstrate how leadership has been exercised as Mexican society changed through the years (Cosío Villegas, 1955; Krauze, 1991; Parkes, 1966; Vasconcelos, 1971). This provides a background for an integrative summary of cultural values that are predominant today and influence leadership in organizations in Mexico.
Major events in Mexican history are represented by five eras: the indigenous civilizations (before 1520), Spanish conquest and colonization (1520–1810), independence and formation of the nation (1810–1910), consolidating institutions and economic and political transition (1910–2000), and Mexico today (2001).
Indigenous Civilizations. The early history of the Mexican territory consists of the settlement by several nomadic tribes from the north and subsequent intertribal wars for power and territory. After several hundred years, these tribes evolved into complex civilizations. The Toltecs and the Mayans are examples of these civilizations that dominated the region of Mexico during different eras and made remarkable achievements in the arts and sciences. The Aztecs formed the last and best known of these empires. Theirs was a theocracy headed by an emperor who was treated as a living god. It was forbidden to look him in the face and everyone was required to walk barefoot in his presence. Military, commerce, and religion were strong institutions in the Aztec society.
The Aztec empire was extremely hierarchical. Priests and military generals were at the top of the status hierarchy as part of the noble families. Merchants came next in the status hierarchy, then the peasants who farmed the land, followed by slaves. The Aztecs believed their power came from their gods, who required human sacrifices of prisoners captured in wars, slaves, servants, and even courageous warriors. The Aztecs also imposed heavy tax burdens on many smaller kingdoms in the region. Their ruthlessness caused deep resentment, hatred, and fear among the tribes subject to Aztec rule and within allied tribes.
Spanish Conquest. Spanish troops led by Hernan Cortés arrived in 1520. Cortés was mistaken for Quetzalcóatl—an Aztec deity whose return was predicted by an Aztec legend. This circumstance led to a series of misjudgments of the Spaniards by the Aztecs. The Spaniards brought several diseases that were unknown to the Indians, such as smallpox, which killed thousands and caused extreme demoralization. Cortés formed alliances with several tribes who opposed Aztec rule. These factors brought about the conquest and destruction of the Aztec Empire. The eventual conquest of northern Mexico was possible later, due in part to the Catholic missionary priests who conquered many of the less organized nomadic tribes with religious strategies.
The era of Spanish conquest and colonialism sought to impose the values of 16th century Roman Catholicism and intellectual repression on indigenous theocratic and militaristic empires—reinforcing a tradition of authoritarianism by leaders. The viceroy was the ruling representative of the Spanish crown in the colony. Among the 62 viceroys who ruled New Spain (Mexico), many were good administrators and a few were outstanding. The first, Don Antonio de Mendoza (1535–1550), achieved order by excellent politics. Luis de Velasco (1550–1564) abolished Indian slavery and initiated other measures to diminish the suffering of the indigenous population. Within the colonial administration, institutions were established to restrain the power of the viceroys and discourage corruption (Meyer, Sherman, & Deeds, 1999). However, these measures were poorly implemented and indigenous populations continued to suffer abuse (Bonfil Batalla, 1987; Horgan, 1984).
The expansion of Catholicism was a key element in the Spanish colonial system. Political and social leadership during the three centuries of colonization was dispersed among the viceroys, the noblemen, and the clergy. Clergymen were essentially part of a royal bureaucracy that dominated the society of New Spain. The archbishop was second only to the viceroy in importance and power. Several thousand priests and members of religious orders became owners of large properties and they answered only to their own clerical courts. Half of the arable land in Mexico may have become property of the clergy. The Catholic Church controlled two thirds of the capital in circulation. It made loans to land owners and acquired mortgages on their estates. The Church sought to replace the worship of pagan gods with Christian images and rituals by exempting converted Indians of all taxes and punishing those who resisted. Parish priests not only represented the Church, but were “agents of the state religion” and “intermediaries between parishioners and higher authorities and between the sacred and the profane” (Taylor, 1996, p. 3). However, besides interpreting and supervising the enforcement of the obligations of their parishioners to the Church and the state, parish priests also interceded to represent the needs of their parishioners to these authorities and were sometimes benefactors. In this way, patterns of control and reciprocal obligations developed between subordinate indigenous and mestizo (mixed Indian and Spanish) populations and their political and religious leaders. These patterns of control and mutual influence evolved into a patronage system and continue to influence present conceptions of effective and desirable leadership among Mexicans.
As in most colonial situations, power was not shared with the indigenous people and, as a rule, indigenous groups were not permitted to benefit from the resources of the colony. Furthermore, Spanish descendants born in the colonies (creoles) were also excluded from some positions of authority and consequently could not benefit, as did their Spanish-born peers, from colonial resources. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to assume that indigenous groups passively accepted control. On the contrary, they survived, resisted, and accommodated to Spanish rule in complex ways that ethnohistorians and anthropologists are still trying to unravel (Krippner-Martínez, 2001; Taylor, 1996; Wolf, 1966). The threat of violence underlay all social relationships during the colonial period. Although some negotiation and consent took place, power was exercised primarily by agents of the economic and political elite. Military outposts and local militia played key roles in maintaining security (Horgan, 1984). Many historians have regarded the colonial period as a time of cruel imposition of Spanish interests on the welfare of natives with little or no concern for personal rights, needs or cultural values (Bonfil Batalla, 1987). Other scholars, however, suggest that the Spanish tyranny reflects the behaviors during and after the decline of the colonial system in the last decades of the 18th century (J. Krippner-Martínez, personal communication, 2002; Taylor, 1996). The important point is that Spanish conquest and colonialism, with its imposition of Catholicism, reinforced a tradition of authoritarianism and omnipotence by leaders.
Independence and the New Nation. In 1810 the Spanish dominance crumbled in America. A rebellion of mestizos headed by two priests, Miguel Hidalgo and José María Morelos, who invoked the authority of the Church and priesthood, promised revenge on the colonial masters and raised the ideals of an independent nation under a republican rule with a constitution and a congress. Led by Agustín Iturbide, a group of conservative, wealthy creoles, uncomfortable with the liberal ideals espoused by Hidalgo and Morelos, took advantage of the popular insurgency to organize their own struggle for independence from Spain. When the rebellion against Spanish rule was successful, Iturbide took power for himself and became the first emperor of Mexico in 1822 (Meyer et al., 1999). His government was important because it consolidated Mexico's independence. It was shortened, however, because it failed to receive societal and international support and recognition.
The break from Spanish dominance corresponded with the evolution of Mexican caudillos or regional governors. These were usually very powerful men, owners of huge estates called haciendas. They imposed their own law within their territories, were expansionist with regard to small landowners and other interests surrounding their property, and relied on bound labor and wielded extreme power over the labor force. As was frequently the case, caudillos became patrons when their leadership was characterized by protective practices toward loyal followers. Krauze (1994) has demonstrated that Mexican leaders have usually invoked moral and religious principles for legitimacy. This patriarchal leadership had its antecedent in the role of missionaries during the spiritual conquest of Mexico, and the role of the church and its padres during the forging of the new nation. Owners of haciendas, or any people in power, had the ecclesiastic right to command people as long as they behaved in a paternalistic manner. The caudillos were sustained not only by their vast properties, but also by their ability to develop patron–client relationships reinforced by deeply rooted notions of legitimacy incorporating religious beliefs and practices (Taylor, 1996; Wolf, 1966). These relationships were sometimes imposed upon people autocratically, under the threat of either death or religious condemnation. Whether emperors, viceroys, presidents, governors, bishops, parish priests, caudillos, or patrones, historical narratives of most Mexican leaders have described an authority based on the intentions of an unassailable supreme figure. Nevertheless, these relationships between dominant and subordinate individuals, as they were enacted on a daily basis in colonial Mexico, were mediated by reciprocal responsibility and negotiation between parties. Indigenous people, and other subordinate groups, did not simply submit to colonial rule, but often negotiated, appropriated, and were accommodating to modify existing patterns of behavior, beliefs, and practices. Taylor and other historians have demonstrated that indigenous and mestizo Mexicans were active participants in changing their own society.
During most of the 19th century, Mexico lived in a state of poverty, turmoil, and constant revolution. There were 50 military governments, two secessions (Texas and Yucatán), seven different congresses, three constitutions, a reform act, and many state constitutions. Several generals from the war for independence became political bosses of their territories, including Guadalupe Victoria, Vicente Guerrero, and Antonio López de Santa Anna. Each of these eventually became president but was unable to consolidate the Republic. Financial affairs were handled poorly, ethnic and social tensions continued, and there was little law enforcement. The military and the clergy, who had the real economic power, opposed genuine reforms. Santa Anna was an extreme example of the corrupt political leadership of this era. He conspired and supported one faction or another, yet he was elected president 11 times between 1832 and 1855 due to his charisma and military stature.
As was true of the rest of the world, socially committed leadership was rare in Mexico during the 19th century. Benito Juárez was an exception. He was an Indian from Oaxaca who built a revolt to establish a more democratic form of government and to stimulate economic development. He sought to abolish the independent powers of the Church (and the generals), to place its wealth in service of the nation, and also to privatize communal indigenous landholdings. Juárez became the first civilian president of Mexico in 1858. His social reforms were interrupted by French intervention, the Maximilian emperor period (1861–1867), followed by the rebellion of Porfirio Diaz.
Porfirio Diaz, a general under Juarez's presidency, consolidated military leadership through continuous reelection for 30 years (1876–1910). He brought peace, order, and economic prosperity through convenient alliances with his former enemies: the landowners, the Church, the generals, and foreign investors. Although Diaz's administration of alliances generated a dynamic economy, only a few Mexicans benefited from the resulting prosperity. Social reform was alien to Diaz's regime and political abuses were frequent. Finally, with differing motivations but united in their desire to remove Diaz from power, several regional movements incorporating diverse social groups coalesced to mount a revolt against Diaz's military dictatorship. Peasants in Morelos and other rural areas, workers in Mexico City and the northern mining economy, and middle-class intellectuals were among the participants in the insurgency. In addition, the very economic changes Diaz initiated had created new social groups that were excluded from the inner circle of power. This was especially the case for the emerging capitalist bourgeoisie of the northern states. After a violent civil war, it was this last group who ultimately emerged from the revolution in control of the country. The end of the revolution did not dispel military leaders from power. With the exception of Francisco Madero, all presidents of the first 50 years of the revolutionary republic were army generals. During Madero's presidency (1911–1913), the realization of his democratic ideals and commitment to social reform were hampered by his inability to unite the different revolutionary groups with sharply conflicting ideas, a weak economy, and his own administration's nepotism. Collusion by Henry Lane Wilson, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, with leaders of the left and right resulted in a pact to overthrow Madero. Madero was beset by armed revolt from the left, including General Zapata, who believed that Madero was moving too slowly to improve the lot of common Mexicans, as well as insurgents of the right who did not support Madero's democratic agenda (Meyer et al., 1999). Nevertheless, the ideals of liberal democratic revolutionary leaders such as Francisco Madero, and the populist revolutionary military leaders Francisco Villa and Emiliano Zapata, had a lasting effect on the emerging political ideology of future Mexican leaders.
Consolidating Institutions and Economic and Political Transition. The senseless murder of President Madero in December of 1913 set a tone of continuous betrayal and murder among winning revolutionary leaders that characterized the revolutionary period. Finally, Plutarco Elias Calles, an authoritarian and talented president (1924–1928), found a solution to end the fighting. He helped form a political party called the National Revolutionary Party (PNR), which later became the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI). The PRI became a solid structure to support the authority of the national president, and emphasized a political culture of reciprocity within a single-party state. This political party was formed on the basis of a power distribution to leaders of main sectors of society: the military, unions, teachers, the Church, peasant and factory workers, as well as social sectors such as entrepreneurs, intellectuals, and the media. All espoused their commitment to constitutional rule. The PRI maintained control of the government for over 70 years and was effective in consolidating institutions and providing social stability to Mexico through much of the 20th century.
Annual growth rates in gross national product (GNP) of 6% or higher, an increase in real wages, and relatively sound monetary and fiscal policies between 1958 and 1970, often called the stabilizing development period, contributed to social stability. The state provided infrastructure development, tax breaks, and financial support for manufacturers as part of the Import Substitution Industrialization Policies (1930s through early 1960s). After World War II acceptable levels of economic growth were achieved in a closed economy characterized by protective trade policies, government subsidies to industry, and public ownership of enterprises in key sectors. However, by 1970 the capacity of the economy to generate economic growth under the same policies, pursued since the 1930s, was insufficient to meet Mexico's needs. Severe problems, including poorly designed protective tariffs, inefficiently run state-owned companies, and a growing and corrupt government bureaucracy, produced a vicious circle of rising public deficits, accelerating inflation, capital flight, and a mounting foreign debt. Beginning in the late 1960s, in addition to the need for change in the economic structure to ensure growth and prosperity, the political leadership of the PRI also struggled with how to respond to more vocal protest for social change toward greater democracy. Student movements, urban guerillas, increased union autonomy, and increasing discord between the entrepreneurial elite and the government characterized the late 1960s and 1970s.
On the economic front, an entire generation of Mexicans suffered the instability of the sharp devaluations of the peso in 1976, 1982, 1986, and 1994. The first two devaluations coincided with the end of the 6-year terms of Presidents Echeverria and Lopez Portillo. Echeverria's populist policies did not effectively reduce social inequality and his reluctance to impose fiscal reform led to the balance-of-payments crisis of 1976. Lopez Portillo continued to postpone structural economic change and his administration was characterized by excessive spending. The accumulated effects of inappropriate fiscal policy and corrupt government contributed to the problems leading to peso devaluation.
President de la Madrid took office after the devaluation of 1982 during a serious crisis of confidence in the Mexican economy. De la Madrid initiated changes in the economic structure to open the economy to global competition by trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation of government-run and subsidized firms and industries. During the administration of President de la Madrid, Mexico became a member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The liberalization of the Mexican economy, and the policies of fiscal discipline and austerity, deregulation, and privatization initiated by President De la Madrid, were sustained by the government strategies of his two successors, Carlos Salinas and Ernesto Zedillo. In fact, these three presidents, trained in economics in prestigious U.S. universities, formed the generation of political leadership that radically shifted away from the ideological, political, and economic positions of their predecessors. Nationalistic and populist ideology had dominated political power for 50 years until President De la Madrid took office. These three neo-liberal and technocratic presidents, as they were customarily labeled by their critics and some Mexican intellectuals, not only imposed a new economic policy in Mexico, but completely changed the ideas and discourse that had sustained and dominated political leadership in Mexico for more than half of the 20th century. With their entrance into political leadership, the previous generation of political, unionist, empresarial, and social leaders were replaced by new leaders who introduced concepts such as competitiveness, globalization, technical innovation, and total quality.
Following the administration of President Salinas de Gortari, Ernesto Zedillo took office in December of 1994 to begin his 6-year term. He would be the last in a consecutive line of PRI presidents since 1924. President Salinas continued the liberal reform of the economic structure of Mexico and made Mexico a credible global player in international trade by implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and attracting foreign investment to Mexico. However, the end of his term marked the beginning of multiple indictments of widespread corruption, which descredited his administration and personal reputation. When President Zedillo widened the bands on the exchange rate of the peso to more accurately reflect its real value, the value of the peso plummeted as the foreign investors with primarily indirect investments in Mexico withdrew their money. The peso lost 45% of its value and Mexico's foreign reserves were depleted. Facing another economic crisis, Mexicans reflected on the nature and pace of economic reforms and the absence of democratic reforms to accompany economic ones.
During the Zedillo administration it became increasingly evident that political and administrative centralization, corrupt and bureaucratic mismanagement of public resources, resource distribution designed to facilitate political control, and large government subsidies by the PRI government were becoming less useful for maintaining political stability and economic growth. For the first time in a century, open criticism of the president in the press and other media was not suppressed. Three major institutions became leading forces for power redistribution rather than continued political control by the PRI: the Federal Elections Institute (IFE), the Congress, and (to an extent) the Bank of Mexico. The increasing gap between the government's economic and political policies and the demands of key societal actors resulted in a voting population that demanded improved economic performance and political processes. This was reflected in regional electoral triumphs of opposition parties and the political transition that culminated in the presidential election in 2000 of Vicente Fox, a member of the National Action Party (PAN). Fox was very successful in campaigning as a social democrat and offering his political platform as the only hope for deep political change in the country. Replacing the PRI as the party in control became a major pragmatic goal for most Mexican voters, including influential intellectuals, politicians, and many social leaders whose political ideas were otherwise distant from PAN's conservative ideology.
Five years of President Fox's administration have shown that dismantling a self-sustained authoritarian system, replacing inefficient social and economic structures with profound reforms, and bringing about economic prosperity and social justice for a large disadvantaged population was more difficult than Fox anticipated. One of the major failures of this administration is the lack of political expertise to generate enough consensuses for national reforms in three fields: energy, taxes, and labor relations. As Preston and Dillon (2004) recently noted, no one seriously questions the essential vigor of the democracy Mexicans have constructed and the country's peaceful transition to a more equitable power distribution.
The PRI defeat in the 2000 elections and the trend toward democracy and stronger independent institutions does not guarantee the end of old leadership habits. Leadership of caudillos in politics and business is still alive in Latin America, and probably will be for some years. Though certain manifestations of authoritarianism persists in many sectors in Mexico today, a leadership shift has also occurred away from centralized governance toward greater community involvement and open government, more efficient disclosure of corruption at all levels of leadership, and greater social pressure on political power brokers to be far more responsive to the needs of their constituencies.
Current Mexican Society—A Portrait of Change. Mexico is now predominantly an urban country, almost three fourths of its population lives in cities. Although country life is still important, migration to cities has diminished the size of rural communities. The population in Mexico is approximately 100 million. Fifty percent of Mexicans are younger than 15 years of age, and the age pyramid is changing. In the first two decades of the 21st century, most of the population will be in its working years. The average years of formal education is 8 years and this mean value has increased by almost 2 years each decade. Illiteracy is below 8% and half of this is concentrated in the elderly (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografíae Informática [INEGI], 1990, 1995, 2002). Educated young people should be a major social force for change in the near future.
The structural changes in the Mexican economy initiated by President de la Madrid during the early 1980s, and continued by succeeding presidential administrations, have effectively liberalized trade and opened the economy to foreign investment. Since 1982, Mexico has signed free-trade agreements with countries in North America, Central and South America, the European Union, and several Asia-Pacific countries. Economic reform and international commerce have favorable long-term implications for economic growth. Exports of manufactured goods have steadily increased (INEGI, 2002) and Mexican firms are becoming more competitive. In the short term, however, it has made Mexican firms more vulnerable to international competitors and real wages have declined until very recently. Opening the Mexican economy to global competition has had significant impacts on the business elite's ideas about leadership and organizational practices in many Mexican firms. As documented later in the chapter, some Mexican managers have had to change their leadership behaviors and practices in order to survive.
One of the most important economic developments in recent decades is the establishment of the maquiladora industry, which is primarily concentrated along the Mexican border with the United States. Maquiladoras are assembly plants owned and operated by business firms from the United States and other countries that take advantage of the low-wage Mexican labor force and the proximity to the U.S. market. The key concept of the maquiladoras is that components are produced in the United States and other countries, assembled in Mexico, and exported to the United States and elsewhere for distribution with an import tax imposed only on the value added in Mexico. These plants have provided a major industrial economic base for Mexican border cities and have been a major income generator for the Mexican economy. They have also been influential in importing management practices from the United States, Japan, and other countries into Mexican organizations. Quality principles, ISO standards, and autonomous work groups are being used in some Mexican organizations that emphasize increased participation by workers (de la Cerda, 1995). However, because of trade liberalization, maquiladoras have recently lost unique advantages in relation to other Mexican manufacturing concerns. Despite all these social and economic changes, today about 95% of Mexican business firms have fewer than 15 employees, and most are family owned, where traditional leadership practices are used.
The labor force is now predominantly in service and manufacturing industries. Though official unemployment is very low, about 2.5%, underemployment is still a pernicious problem that includes close to one third of the national employed population (INEGI, 2002). The role of women has changed dramatically. More than one third of working-age women are employed and this trend is rapidly increasing. The mean level of education for women is close to that of men, and women are assuming leadership positions in business and politics.
The Catholic religion is still predominant in Mexico (over 90%), but changes in religious affiliation are increasingly common. Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religious practices are no longer unusual and Protestant and other Christian denominations are increasing. This is one of the most significant indicators of social change because Mexicans have always had a strong religious tradition. The Catholic Church has been influential in the politics, government, and society of Mexico for hundreds of years. An increasing number of individuals are choosing to change religion, probably because they are unsatisfied with their socioeconomic and spiritual development and they consider themselves free to choose their spiritual destiny. This change shows the deep transformations occurring in Mexican society.
The election of Vicente Fox from the PAN party is the most prominent indicator of political transformation. Fox campaigned on a platform of social and economic change and wellbeing (Krauze, 2000). The PAN party also represents the first minority in both branches of National Congress: the Senate and the Representatives Chamber. Three main parties—PAN, PRI, and PRD—share most chairs in both chambers, but no party has a majority in any chamber. Although major changes in political and federal government organizations are expected, all forces for change must surmount traditional structures of power built during more than 70 years of PRI government.
Although unionism is very traditional, unions are no longer completely loyal to the traditional PRI system. Official unions are still powerful and paternalistic, but new labor movements are rising. The structure of unionism in Mexico may be changing. Business and entrepreneurial organizations have supported traditional unionism. They have enjoyed labor stability for decades while strikes and wage demands have been under control. Even though entrepreneurs see labor laws as too paternalistic, they accept their protective orientation in exchange for stability and control. Entrepreneurs are no longer a monolithic group, and political loyalty is not mandatory. Entrepreneurial and professional organizations now operate independently of political or government affiliation.
For many years, large business organizations have existed in Mexico called grupos empresariales (or corporativos), which are essentially conglomerates. Some grupos originated as domestic business alliances and/or international partnerships that have existed for decades. They engage in the production and distribution of products and services in diverse industries including steel, food, real estate, petrochemicals, telecommunications, finance, agriculture, and publishing. Grupos are historically family owned and operated, but business trends in Mexico since the 1980s have brought about changes in their operations. The ownership of some grupos is no longer concentrated in one or a few families, and in some instances ownership is becoming separate from management. Deregulation of formerly state-owned enterprises allowed some grupos to add significantly to their asset holdings at bargain prices. Many are making extensive use of consultants to improve competitiveness, to link to international production networks, or to take advantage of market niches in the domestic economy. Grupos are among the most powerful economic and political entities in Mexico today.
Other interest groups are also organizing themselves and fighting for their rights. Public education in rural areas began in the 1930s and most of Mexico's population was rural until the latter part of the 20th century. Now that education is widespread and increasing, the potential for influence by various groups is significantly increased. Ethnic groups, social and political movements (such as the Zapatistas in Chiapas), professional groups, intellectual groups, religious groups, women's groups, small-business owners, and some radical groups are examples of the diverse interest groups that make up the pluralistic society that is Mexico today.
The family as a social entity is also changing. As families become urbanized, extended familial identities may be losing their influence. This does not mean that ties with two or three generations are necessarily breaking apart, but that families may not be as demanding of members’ loyalty as in the past. Traditional family disintegration is one of the main problems confronting Mexican society. Women have become leaders of many nuclear and mono-parent families because of the economic and psychological support they give when fathers are absent. This is especially the case for thousands of families whose fathers work in the United States as immigrants.
Alduncin (1986) wrote that Mexico is in the middle of two superimposed eras (tradition vs. modernity) and wants to establish itself as a culturally and economically developed country. Permanent changes in Mexican life are likely to come from continued widening of the distribution of power in society, trade liberalization, and major economic progress. These changes are ongoing in Mexico. Many Mexicans are learning new ways of facing life and problems, often different from the passive, fatalistic and dependent modes of the past. But Mexican culture has not changed completely. Many traditions are alive and strong and certain perceptions and values of the Mexican people remain constant. The major cultural values that prevail today and influence leadership in Mexico reflect the country's history as well as the social changes described here.
The historical evolution of Mexican society provides a frame of reference for describing and understanding important cultural values which are prevalent in Mexico today. These cultural values reflect Mexico's cultural heritage and they strongly affect the behavior of Mexican leaders in business, government, social movements, and many other organizational contexts. Several of these values are related to those identified by GLOBE researchers in the current study, but they are described here as emerging from Mexico's historical development as a nation and a society.
Traditionalism. Traditional societies, like much of Mexico, emphasize family, class, reverence for the past, and ascribed status. Modern societies, such as Sweden or the United States, stress merit, rationality, and progress (Bass, 1990). Men have higher status than women in traditional societies. Time is often viewed with no sense of urgency; punctuality and long-range planning are unimportant (Davis, Ming, & Brosnan, 1986). Traditional societies often accept and respond to autocratic (nonparticipative) leadership. These social characteristics are found in much of Mexico, especially in the less developed and poorer regions in the south and areas that are distant from highly industrialized cities. Paternalism and autocratic behavior by leaders reflect the patterns of authority during the colonial period when power was centralized in representatives of the Spanish monarchy and the Church. These leadership patterns also reflect the post-Colonial periods when the society was dominated by military leaders and a single political party machine. A strong class structure with its ascribed status also emerged from early Indian societies and Spanish dominance. The family has been a safe haven during all the tumultuous periods of Mexican history. Traditional attitudes toward time and the role of women, as well as other traditional practices, are often carried by families and individuals who move from rural regions to the cities. Until recently, families have tended to stay together or closely connected, and the traditional values have been maintained and reinforced in the home. This helps explain why these values continue to be evident in the workplace in small and medium-size organizations, and sometimes in large organizations, where they often conflict with more modern cosmopolitan values.
In-Group Collectivism. A key feature of traditional societies, the family has been a source of nurturance, protection, and support during the Indian, Spanish, and revolutionary eras. Supremacy of the father, sacrifice of the mother, and children who love, obey, and respect their parents characterize the traditional Mexican family.3 The oldest male (a patriarch) is the head of the traditional extended family in Mexico. Loyalty and abnegation are considered important to satisfy other's needs in the family before one's own needs. This close family structure with a strong father figure and the devotion expected of family members provided the basic model for strict hierarchical organization structures found throughout Mexico. Respect and cooperation with those who are higher in the social hierarchy are expected of all Mexicans. These expectations frequently support the authoritarian and autocratic behaviors often found with Mexican leaders.
Power Distance. Large power differences have always existed in Mexican society; they are expected and respected. Power is desired and exercised by the political strongman (caudillo), the military leader, and the successful businessman (Foster, 1960). Paz (1981) described the close resemblance between the macho male and the Spanish conquistador. He believed it was the model for Mexican men with power: feudal lords, hacienda owners, politicians, generals, captains of industry, cardinals, and heads of state, as well as heads of villages, cities, business firms, and families (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998). This model of a powerful leader has advanced the use of authoritarian and paternalistic behaviors by Mexican leaders (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998).
Social Individualism. The North American concept of individualism includes beliefs in equal opportunity, personal initiative and enterprise, and individual rights (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998). Mexicans, and many other Latin Americans, have a different view of individualism that focuses on personal honor, dignity, and an intrinsic sense of self-worth. For generations, many Mexican people have felt betrayed by the myriad of governments that have exploited them or ignored their needs. This may be one reason that Mexicans often behave individualistically when they are outside their own families. They are frequently highly protective of their “turf” in hierarchical, formal organizations. This type of individualism often discourages democratic processes in organizations and permits individuals to exploit opportunities and to take advantage of others. This cultural trait helps maintain the caudillo image of men with power described earlier. One journalist described Latin Americans as having an “inability to become part of the whole, to feel involved in the collective destiny” (Rangle, 1977, p. 208). Octavio Paz (1959) added, “The [Mexican] Revolution has not succeeded in changing our country into a community, or even in offering any hope of doing so” (p. 175). This social individualism is related to a GLOBE cultural dimension entitled Social Collectivism described later in this chapter.
Interpersonal Relationships. Mexicans developed a pattern of building and maintaining close relationships with others as a strategy for accomplishing things. By building networks of personal interaction, affection, and loyalty within and between organizations, Mexicans developed an indirect way of manipulating their environment. Personal relationships with family and friends take precedence over merit and equity (Bass, 1990). One writer described an example of the strategy as: “If the teacher loves me, I will get an ‘A’” (Diaz-Loving, 1999). For people with little political or economic power, social relationships and commitments became paramount in obtaining cooperation or employment in organizations, in signing business or government contracts, and in most aspects of Mexican society. Friendships and personal acquaintances create a network of individuals who can help a person when she or he needs them. This interpersonal strategy for attaining one's goals is often called personalismo and is a direct response to individuals with political, economic, or religious power who did not represent the people's interests or meet their needs. The authoritarian traditions of church and state have resulted in laws and regulations being viewed as things to be avoided. Gratification and achievement rely on social individualism and freedom of action that can create lawlessness, but is usually based on effective personal working relationships with the right people (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998).
Summary. The five eras of Mexican history have been characterized by violence, conflict, accommodation, revolution, and change. Authoritarian leadership, lack of trust in government and the political process, a hierarchical social structure, and enduring poverty have also been present. Today, much of Mexico is rapidly changing—authoritarianism is giving way to more democratic involvement, trust in political leaders and the government is increasing somewhat, and economic progress is creating more opportunity and optimism for the future. In Mexico, these changes are occurring within the context of cultural values that have evolved through 500 years of history, including traditionalism, in-group collectivism, power distance, social individualism, and the importance of interpersonal relations. These values will undoubtedly shape the course of social and economic progress in Mexico during this century.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON MANAGERIAL LEADERSHIP IN MEXICO
We conducted a literature review of published academic books and articles that address management and leadership in Mexico. Publications in both the United States and Mexico were included. This literature review continued throughout the project as new material became available.
A media analysis for Mexico was also carried out by scanning five popular publications in Mexico for articles pertaining to leadership in Mexico. This analysis covered two 4-week periods during March, April, and May of 2000. The publications, which were scanned, were one national newspaper (El Financiero), two regional newspapers (Público and Mural), and two national magazines—one of political orientation (Proceso) and one business review (Expansión). The media sources are independent of one another; they are published in Mexico City and Guadalajara, which are major business centers in Mexico. Their political orientation and target audiences vary, and their circulation is high. Some of these sources occasionally publish applied articles based on management research in other countries, but most of the articles reviewed dealt with trends or changes taking place in organizations in Mexico.
Each of the media publications was scanned to locate articles relevant to leadership in Mexico. More than 200 articles were read. Key phrases were identified in each article that indicated what effective leaders should do or should be like, as well as important leader attributes that fit an accepted pattern of leadership in Mexico. The central verb or adjective of each phrase was identified and used as a code word for this phrase. These code words then represented potential behaviors, actions, or characteristics of effective leaders. Three reviewers participated in this analysis and the key words they abstracted were very consistent across sources and reviewers. The information from the literature review and media analysis was later compared with the quantitative survey results of middle managers using GLOBE questionnaires described later.
Academic Literature
Several cultural characteristics explain a consistent finding by leadership researchers in Mexico—effective leaders in Mexico make extensive use of supportive/relationship oriented leader behaviors in influencing their followers (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998; Kras, 1992). Supportive behaviors are effective in Mexico at improving followers’ job satisfaction and performance and in reducing followers’ role ambiguity (Chemers & Aymen, 1985; Dorfman et al., 1997; Kras, 1994). Although many traditional authoritarian leaders in Mexico are not supportive of their followers, these recent studies show that supportiveness is an important part of effective leadership in Mexico today. The efficacy of leaders’ supportiveness reflects the importance of interpersonal relations, which require courtesy, respect, and friendliness by leaders. The paternalistic and in-group collectivist orientation in Mexico mean a high value is placed on caring, listening, and understanding (simpático), which are hallmarks of supportive leaders.
Another finding in Mexico that is consistent with traditional cultural characteristics is the effectiveness of directive leadership behavior. Directive leadership involves focusing on followers’ work tasks: how they are completed, who does what, when they must be completed, and the importance of meeting quality and quantity requirements. Directive leader behaviors reflect the traditional autocratic patrón model of Mexican history, where the elite leader maintained a sizable social distance from followers who were generally compliant and showed due respect and loyalty to the leader. In the United States and Western Europe, directive leaders are not necessarily autocratic or authoritarian when communicating with followers about their tasks. But with Mexico's cultural traditions, a status-oriented authoritarian style in dealing with followers has been more prevalent (Gutiérrez, 1993; Stephens & Greer, 1995). Mulder (1976) associated this style with a fear of disagreeing with one's superior, resulting in the “no problema” syndrome in responding to a superior's instructions (Drost & Von Glinow, 1998). Directive leader behaviors have been shown to improve followers’ commitment to the organization and job performance and to reduce role ambiguity in Mexico (Dorfman et al., 1997; Dorfman & Howell, 1988, 1997).
Charismatic leader behaviors also reflect a historical tradition in Mexico. Mexican history is filled with charismatic revolutionary leaders who are continuously honored and celebrated. Political leaders often adopt a historical charismatic leader as a “spiritual” adviser (Riding, 1989). Workers will often rally around an emotional speech by a top manager, rather than a management program that stresses competition with others (Schuler, Jackson, Jackofsky, & Slocum, 1996). Bass (1990) indicated that charismatic leadership would be effective in collectivist cultures and this has been supported in studies of work organizations in Mexico (Dorfman et al., 1997).
Hofstede (1980) found Mexico to be high on his general measure of collectivism. This implies that individualized contingent rewards provided by leaders may not be effective in Mexico. However, control of rewards in organizations reflects a manager's power, and Mexico is also high in power distance. Our cultural description also identified Social Individualism as prevalent in Mexican culture. These factors may explain why leaders’ contingent reward behavior has produced high worker commitment to the organization in Mexico (Dorfman et al., 1997; Dorfman & Howell, 1997). The cultural mandate not to embarrass or offend others prevents a leader's contingent punishment behavior from having any favorable effects on followers in Mexico (Dorfman & Howell, 1997).
Hofstede (1980) also indicated that participative leadership behavior was not effective in cultures that were Collectivist and high in Power Distance. The long history of strongly authoritarian military and political leaders in Mexico also does not support a high degree of participation by leaders. Several researchers have found participative leadership behaviors to be ineffective in Mexican organizations (Dorfman et al., 1997; Dorfman & Howell, 1997; Schuler et al., 1996). It should be noted, however, that a more participative leadership style seems to be emerging in the industrial centers of Mexico and along the U.S.–Mexico border. This emphasizes more worker involvement and teamwork than the traditional Mexican leadership approach (Agar, 1998; Lawrence & Yeh, 1995; Pelled & Hill, 1997; Vargas & Johnson, 1993). As Mexican business and other organizations become increasingly internationalized (through trade agreements, maquiladora plants, and joint ventures with companies from the United States, Japan, and other countries), this new leadership style may become more prevalent throughout Mexico.
The 10 most frequently mentioned key words abstracted from the extensive media analysis reflect two persistent leadership themes found in the other data sources for this study (see Table 20.1). The first theme is highly social oriented and includes supportive behavior by the leader, such as helping followers and facilitating a feeling of belongingness and harmony. This social theme also includes integrating/conciliative behavior by a leader such as resolving differences, finding common ground, and forming alliances to hold people together in a common cause. This theme clearly supports the importance of positive interpersonal relations (personalismo), respect and sensitivity to followers (simpático), and collectivism in organizations as described in the Culture section, the interview results, and the research on leadership in Mexico.
The other persistent leadership theme supported by the media analysis is directive and performance oriented. This theme includes designing proposals to help achieve goals and change/transform organizations, emphasizing a practical orientation to guide action and achievement, and planning, implementing, and controlling activities to attain effective results. Although the articles seldom associated authoritarian approaches with this leadership concept, this theme does correspond with a strong central leader (caudillo) found in the Culture section and the research on directive leadership in Mexico. This theme also reflects the high value placed on Performance Orientation detailed in the GLOBE culture scales measuring societal values in Mexico, as well as the interview results. Both of these data sources are reported later in this chapter.
A newer theme also emerged from the key words abstracted in the media analysis. Although it occurred less often than the two dominant themes already described, it may reflect the newer leadership pattern that is appearing in the industrial centers of Mexico. This theme includes leaders’ role in negotiating and bargaining to reach agreements, representing their followers and organizations to other parties, and creating conditions for and implementing participation by followers in decision making. These behaviors imply an outward orientation by leaders to create agreements and conditions where their followers and organizations can thrive. They also indicate a developing shift from the traditionally strong internal leader with passive compliant followers to leaders and followers who work together to solve increasingly complex problems in organizations. This evolving theme supports findings from recent leadership research on participation in Mexico's major industrial regions as well as interview results described later. It also is consistent with the relatively low score on Power Distance obtained on the GLOBE culture scales measuring societal values in Mexico. Although this newer theme may conflict with the second theme of a strong central leader, the presence of both themes in the media shows the ongoing conflict between traditional and cosmopolitan approaches to leadership in Mexican organizations.
3. METHODOLOGY OF GLOBE RESEARCH IN MEXICO
In addition to extensive literature reviews, the GLOBE project in Mexico involved semistructured and ethnographic interviews with managers, focus groups, and questionnaire administration to obtain meaningful data on culture dimensions and leadership processes. Each method is briefly described in this section and results are presented in later sections of this chapter. The different methods yield an interesting web of information that portrays a consistent view of Mexican culture and managerial leadership.
Results of Media Analysis
Semistructured interviews were conducted with Mexican plant managers, midlevel managers and supervisors in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. In these interviews, we sought to learn as much as possible about leadership and organizational practices in Mexico that reflect Mexican culture. We included questions about the importance of leadership in managing Mexican organizations, the styles of leadership that are most effective, and the characteristics, norms and beliefs of Mexican managers.
Focus groups were conducted to further explore the issues that emerged from the literature reviews and semistructured interviews. We conducted focus group sessions with Mexican managers and professionals who were enrolled in classes at New Mexico State University and with managers and technical personnel at the Juárez campus for the Monterrey Technological Institute. Participants were asked to prepare for the sessions by thinking of an outstanding leader and describing the characteristics and behaviors that make this leader effective. We began the sessions by asking for descriptions of specific situations where outstanding leadership was demonstrated.
An ethnographic study of empresarios (entrepreneur/managers) was also conducted by Martínez (2000) as part of her dissertation research. The term empresario is used broadly in Mexico to refer to owner/managers and corporate managers. This term is not equivalent to the term entrepreneur, defined by scholars in the field of entrepreneurship as individuals who identify business opportunities and initiate and manage innovative and competitive firms (Martínez, 2000).4 The term emprendador denotes an entrepreneur. Because of the liberalization of the Mexican economy, Mexican firms must compete globally and empresarios increasingly recognize the critical importance of a focus on quality and innovation. Many are implementing this focus in the leadership of their firms.
Martínez interviewed empresarios who actively managed their own businesses as well as professional managers providing leadership for Mexican firms. Individuals interviewed for the ethnographic study were an elite group of empresarios (defined by a combination of social class, education, and wealth). Throughout the later part of the 20th century, Mexican empresarios played an important role in modernization of structures necessary for economic and political development in Mexico (Derossi, 1971; Valdés Ugalde, 1997). Most businesses in Mexico presently either are owned and managed by an entrepreneur/manager, or are family businesses managed by several family members.
In these ethnographic interviews, Martinez sought to gather data, organize concepts, and interpret findings about managerial leadership in Mexico from the point of view of the interviewees. The research process at this stage was inductive, interpretive, and often iterative. Martinez immersed herself in the Mexican culture, conducted the interviews in a semistructured and conversational manner, and then withdrew to reflect on the leadership concepts that emerged and how they related to the current environment in Mexico. She then often returned for a second interview with the same respondent to refine her understanding of the leadership concepts and relationships and to be sure she represented them in a manner consistent with “native” concepts and construction of reality of the informants.
Thirty-three empresarios were interviewed in Mexico City (in central Mexico) and Ciudad Juárez (on the U.S. border). Both areas are major centers of business activity for the country. The business sectors represented were varied. Five women participated; the interviews were conducted in Spanish and were audiotaped. They were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using QSR NUD*IST (Version 3), a software program designed to support qualitative research.
Survey Questionnaires
The quantitative survey data on GLOBE dimensions of national culture and leadership dimensions were gathered from 152 middle managers in the financial services and food-processing industries (73 were from financial services and 79 from food processing). Nine organizations were sampled in financial services in northern Mexico, and six organizations in food processing were sampled in Mexico City. All of the organizations sampled were branches of large domestic Mexican business organizations and they were not affiliated with transnational corporations from other countries. The size of the branch organizations varied from 25 to several hundred employees. Both of the geographic regions represented are major centers of business activity in Mexico. There were 78 male and 74 female respondents and their ages ranged from 22 to 58, with an average age of 36.
Economic activity increased in Mexico during the early 1990s due to favorable government policies and NAFTA. High economic expectations created a surge of business start-ups and bank loans. However, a peso devaluation in 1994 prompted a severe financial crisis, which was compounded by poor management practices in the banking industry. Swift financial support by the U.S. government, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank provided some stability for the Mexican economy. In 1995, the Mexican government activated a controversial FOBAPROA (a government fund to protect savings). Although this program and the international financial support provided some stability, there was still uncertainty and considerable adjustment occurring in the economy. The GLOBE surveys were administered in 1995 during this period. Nine dimensions of culture were investigated using quantitative measures in all of the countries included in the GLOBE research project. These dimensions are based on earlier cross-cultural research by Hofstede (1980), Hofstede and Bond (1988), Triandis (1995), and McClelland (1961). The nine cultural dimensions are: Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, Assertiveness, Institutional Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Humane Orientation, Power Distance, In-Group Collectivism, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Each of these is defined in the following sections along with the scores for Mexico from the GLOBE quantitative measures. Two types of measures were used for each cultural dimension. The institutional cultural practices in a country were measured by “As Is” (society practices) questions, indicating the respondents’ perception of the current state of a cultural dimension in their society. Respondents’ desired levels of emphasis on each cultural dimension in their society were measured by “Should Be” (society values) questions. These questions indicated how much the respondent believed a cultural dimension should be emphasized in the policies and practices of their institutions. Seven-point Likert scales were used throughout the GLOBE research.
Additional GLOBE questionnaire items were developed to assess the degree to which different leader characteristics and behaviors facilitate or inhibit “outstanding leadership.” These items were carefully validated in two pilot studies of white-collar workers and managers in over 40 countries and in Phase 2 of the main GLOBE project with middle managers in 61 countries. The same sample of middle managers that responded to the culture scales was used for the leadership scales. The rating scales used in the GLOBE surveys indicate the degree that a leadership factor contributes to or inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader. A rating of 4 on this scale means the factor has no impact on whether a person is an outstanding leader. Ratings above 4 indicate a factor contributes to being an outstanding leader and ratings below 4 indicate a factor inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader. The development and validation of GLOBE scales used to gather this survey data were described in House et al. (1999). More information on these scales and examples of questionnaire items is contained in the first chapter of this volume.
The semistructured and ethnographic interviews and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for major themes expressed by the participants. The themes that were identified addressed effective leadership and organizational practices in Mexico as well as important cultural beliefs and values that influence leadership processes in Mexican organizations.
The survey questionnaire data on GLOBE culture dimensions in Mexico are summarized later in Table 20.2 by reporting mean scores on each dimension for Mexico versus all GLOBE countries. These data are reported separately for “As Is” (society practices) and “Should Be” (society values) culture scores as well as the difference on each culture dimension between the “Should Be” and “As Is” scores. The groups (A through C) reported in Table 20.2 indicate the relative score (rank) for Mexico on each specific culture dimension in relation to other countries (see footnote to Table 20.2).
The survey questionnaire data on GLOBE leadership dimensions were factor analyzed resulting in six second-order leadership factors. Mexico's mean score on each of these leadership factors is reported later in Table 20.4. Groups are also reported for the leadership factors in Table 20.4, indicating the relative score (rank) for Mexico on each specific leadership factor in relation to other countries (see footnote to Table 20.4). These mean scores for Mexico, all Latin American GLOBE countries, and all GLOBE countries are also presented in graphic form to facilitate comparison and interpretation.
4. RESULTS
Semistructured Interviews and Focus Groups
The semistructured interviews were the first phase of empirical qualitative research carried out in Mexico. They yielded several initial findings that were further explored in the focus groups. The interviews showed that although an authoritarian leadership style has traditionally been accepted by Mexican workers, a heavy-handed approach that emphasizes threats and punishment is not considered effective. Mexican workers do not approve of leaders who are rude or who offend or embarrass followers in public. In order to be accepted, leaders must respect their followers’ pride and customs.
There was some indication of a persistent Social Darwinist belief among those interviewed that leaders are more competent and deserving than followers. Managers who request subordinates’ input prior to making a decision may be viewed as weak. Consequently, some managers feel little need to share information and objectives with their followers. Subordinates may often be intimidated by status differences and become reluctant to discuss problems with superiors because of the cultural norm of avoiding interpersonal conflict. This may be most common at lower organizational levels or where there is a large difference in the status levels of the leader and employee. These behavioral tendencies indicate a strong belief in high Power Distance in Mexican organizations.
A key cultural theme in the focus groups in Mexico was the importance of maintaining good interpersonal relations. Outstanding Mexican leadership was characterized by terms like trust, respect, and sensitivity. Gaining trust, treating people as human beings, and maintaining courtesy and respect pervaded the discussions. The Mexican expression simpático describes this critical aspect of Mexican leadership. Simpático reflects the ability and willingness to trust people with a special sensitivity to their dignity and worth as individuals. It involves demonstrating respect and empathy to bring out the uniqueness and special characteristics of each person. This aspect of Mexican leadership is often linked with terms such as agradable (nice), comprensivo (understanding), and sencillo (easy to get along with). Mexican leaders take time to learn something about their subordinates’ personal lives and inquire with sincere interest about their families. A manager demonstrated simpático by visiting a subordinate's home to see his wife and their new baby, showing his respect for the importance of family in Mexican culture. This concern for simpático and pleasant interpersonal relations reinforced the essential respect for followers’ pride and customs identified in the interviews.
Another major theme in the focus groups was a type of collective problem solving that only partially resembled participative leadership as practiced in North America and Western Europe. One discussant described this process by saying that managers were expected to design strategies, develop proposals, and offer suggestions that are then discussed by subordinates who are expected to carry them out. We suspect that acting on subordinates’ suggestions may not be as important as in the United States. In contrast to the norm in the United States and Europe, interacting with subordinates to solve problems is often done in an apparent chaotic but highly meaningful manner in Mexico. A manager may deal with more than one person and problem at the same time and in the same room. Here the leader demonstrates control over complex situations, using subtle and indirect means to address each individual's suggestions and concerns. A key point is that all individuals involved must believe they can be involved in problem solving.
A final theme that emerged in the focus groups was a wide agreement that high-level leaders used their “persona” to command allegiance. The managers who were described as examples of this tendency in Mexico were clearly very charismatic individuals who manifested their charisma by a combination of paternalistic directiveness, elements of male machismo, as well as respect and sensitivity for followers (simpático). This theme indicates the salience of charisma as an element of outstanding leadership in Mexico.
In summary, the semistructured interviews and focus groups identified the following leadership themes as important in Mexico: respect for followers and good interpersonal relations, high power distance between leaders and followers, and personal charismatic leadership with a unique type of collective problem solving. All but the last theme support findings reported earlier from the historical analysis and/or the literature reviews.
Ethnographic Interviews
In her ethnographic analysis of the interviews she conducted with Mexican empresarios, Martínez (2000) identified four themes that either directly relate to the results of the GLOBE analysis or have relevance for its interpretation. The first theme is the importance of the family in Mexican culture and “the replication of its structure, system and values within the entrepreneur's firm, especially the patriarchal model” (p. 84). Kinship has played a critical role in Mexican society throughout its history. Most Mexican firms are still owned and controlled by families. Many Mexicans secure financial capital from family members, use the influence of their families to launch business ventures, and choose family members as partners, employees, and/or to serve as members of the board of directors. “Leadership attributes and behavior among Mexican empresarios are usually described by their relationship to the traditional patriarchal model” (p. 100). For instance, a small traditional firm of 60 employees in Mexico City manufactures and distributes children's board games and is controlled by the 89-year-old patriarch-founder who is an autocratic leader. Although unable to come to the office daily because of poor health, he makes the decisions regarding raises for union workers, product lines, and even what color to paint the office. This behavior continues even though his son, who manages the daily business, is a very able man in his 60s and has worked in the business since he was 12 years old. The son finds it difficult to argue with the patriarch who has achieved and sustained success in the business.
“The entrepreneurs associated with larger businesses expressed a leadership style which seemed to negotiate a path between the forces of globalization and modernization … and the former traditional emphasis on family and personal relationships …” (Martínez, 2000, p. 101). What is interesting is the persistence of the influence of one or more elements of the family model within the newly reorganized and more competitive Mexican firms, whether they are controlled by the family or not. A CEO and major shareholder of a dynamic medium-size telecommunications firm spoke of “rewarding employees in a manner that advances their patrimonial interests, achieving a better life and a higher standard of living for their family” (pp. 91–92). It is noteworthy that he describes and designs his reward system in terms of the family. The very high scores on the GLOBE In-Group Collectivism cultural practices dimension are consistent with Martiníez's findings and her description of the theme related to the importance of the family and the patriarchal model.
The second theme described in the ethnographic study, which could be viewed as a subtheme of the first, is the importance of personal relationships. “This focus on personal relationships creates a distinctive humanistic belief system that governs employment. That is, in the relationship between employer and employee, the respect, concern, and long-term employment offered by the employer is exchanged for respect and loyalty on the part of the employee” (Martínez, 2000, p. 85). This same theme was also found in the semi-structured interviews. However, in traditional Mexican business organizations, Mexican entrepreneurs have not always treated employees well.
Within this personal and often paternal relationship, the employer often offers protection and assistance in activities outside the strict boundaries of the organization. Many of the entrepreneurs mentioned a commitment to the growth and development of their employees. One empresario “believes that employees come to the firm with their youth, their enthusiasm and their interest and they should not be returned to society as human ‘rags’—tired, frustrated and feeling old. An employee should be given the opportunity to feel they have fulfilled an obligation to their families and to Mexico by means of their work” (Martínez, 2000, pp. 116–117). A specific GLOBE cultural dimension is relevant to this theme of personal relationships—Humane Orientation. Though Mexico was only average on the Humane Orientation cultural practices dimension (“As Is”), like most countries in GLOBE, Mexicans desire somewhat more Humane Orientation for their society (“Should Be”). Most likely, scores for the Humane Orientation dimension would be higher in Mexico if the construct reflected the importance of respect and concern for those personal relationships within the family.
Both themes just discussed describe the influence on leadership and organizational behavior of the traditional patterns of organizing that have characterized Mexican society. The third theme Martínez identified in her ethnographic study was the influence and proximity of the United States as the major source of managerial models and practices, capital, as well as the primary market and competitor. In general, Mexican empresarios admire the success of U.S. businesses and wish to emulate practices and models to improve their own performance and competitiveness. Managers are beginning to recognize the importance of motivation and the impact of the leader's behavior on the organization. Furthermore, empresarios are now forced to focus on the quality of their products and services. This aspect of productivity and service was not a major consideration before the Mexican economy was liberalized and markets opened to global competition (Martínez, 2000).
The fourth theme is the preoccupation of the entrepreneur/manager with the institutionalization of their firms. Empresarios who participated in the ethnographic study spoke of the need for “institutionalization,” which is a term they use to describe the establishment of systematic managerial processes to ensure productivity, consistency of quality, and the ability to compete. Empresarios view institutionalization as a means to overcome the weaknesses of the family firm, such as hiring based on criteria that are not job related. Institutionalization emphasizes planning and development by which managers can share information and seek support for decisions within the firm, especially among subordinates.
In summary, Martínez (2000) identified several overall leadership themes for empresarios in Mexico: the importance of the family and the patriarchal model, the value of personal relationships between managers and employees, and the influence of the United States on Mexican organizations, which is often shown through the institutionalization of modern management practices originating in the United States. The first two themes reflect those identified previously from other data sources. The final theme may partially reflect the last theme that emerged from the media analysis, describing new roles for organizational leaders in today's organizations in Mexico.
Globe Dimensions of National Culture
Both “As Is” (society practices) and “Should Be” (society values) scores on the nine cultural dimensions are reported in the following sections, along with the differences between these two scores (“Should Be”−“As Is”). These differences indicate the directions that respondents believe their country should be changing regarding the GLOBE cultural dimensions. Table 20.2 summarizes these quantitative scores for the GLOBE cultural dimensions. We also include observations and insights in this section from the qualitative portion of the GLOBE project in Mexico, regarding norms and practices that further elucidate each of the cultural dimensions in Mexico.
Performance Orientation
Performance Orientation is the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. Mexico's “As Is” score on Performance Orientation is medium (4.10 on a 7-point scale). Its score is near the middle of three groups on the distribution of all GLOBE country scores on this culture dimension and its rank was 32 out of 61 countries. Mexico's “Should Be” score on Performance Orientation is high (6.16), near the top of the second group on the distribution for all GLOBE countries and ranked 14 out of 61 GLOBE countries on this culture dimension. Most GLOBE countries scored highly on the “Should Be” scale for Performance Orientation and Mexico was no exception. The difference between the “Should Be” and “As Is” scores on Performance Orientation was strikingly large (2.06). Clearly, Mexican respondents saw a strong need to encourage more achievement and excellence in their organizations. This may be a reaction to a sentiment expressed in some ethnographic interviews that Mexicans in the past have had trouble organizing and achieving success.
Mexico Means for GLOBE Societal Culture Dimensions
aGroups A through C indicate the relative score (and rank) for Mexico on the specific culture dimension in relation to other countries. The groups were formed using the following “banding” procedures (cf. House et al., 2004). This procedure uses the mean score on each culture dimension along with the standard error of estimate (a measure of dispersion) from the total data set to calculate “bands” of similarly rated countries. The number of bands (groups) for each culture dimension depends on the amount of variance (standard error) for each factor. There are significant differences between groups but no significant differences within each group. “A” indicates highest country ranking where “C” indicates next-to-lowest country ranking for Mexico.
Future Orientation is the degree to which individuals in a society engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. Mexico's “As Is” score on Future Orientation is medium (3.87). Its score is second out of four groups (next to highest) on the distribution of all “As Is” GLOBE country scores on this dimension, and ranks 26 out of 61 countries. Riding (1989) and Ramos (1976) described Mexicans as viewing the future with fatalism, so planning seems unnatural. Ardila (1979) also described an emphasis on the present or “losing future perspective” as part of a poverty psychology in Mexico. However, the spreading economic and social development in Mexico may be encouraging more emphasis on Future Orientation (Sotelo Valencia, 1999). Mexico's “Should Be” score on this dimension is high (5.86). Its score is in the top group in the distribution of all “Should Be” scores on the GLOBE cultural dimensions and its rank was 13 out of 61 countries. The difference between the “Should Be” and “As Is” scores on Future Orientation was quite large (1.99), indicating that Mexican respondents perceived the need for much more future-oriented behavior by individuals than currently exists. Until recently, many industries enjoyed a monopoly or were protected from competition by trade regulations. In these situations, there was little motivation to plan. As the economy becomes more open, perception of a need for more Future Orientation can be seen in the increasing number of public and private organizations in Mexico that are developing strategic plans including a vision, mission statement, and overall objectives. Increasing international influences on the Mexican economy and society may be slowly changing the views of Mexican citizens regarding the future of their society.
Assertiveness
Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in a society are assertive, aggressive, and confrontational in social relationships. The GLOBE scale includes descriptors such as “dominant” and “tough” to describe Assertiveness. Mexico's “As Is” score on Assertiveness is high (4.45). It is in the top group on the distribution of all country Assertiveness scores and it ranked 16 out of 61 countries. This score may seem surprising until one considers that the assertive items on the GLOBE scale reflect a strongly dominant male orientation (machismo), which is traditional in Mexican society. Mexico's “Should Be” score on Assertiveness is medium (3.79). It is in the middle group and ranks 27. The difference between “Should Be” and “As Is” scores on Assertiveness was negative, but not large (–0.66). This indicates the Mexican respondents may see a slight need to decrease their degree of Assertiveness.
Institutional Collectivism
Institutional Collectivism indicates the extent that a society's organizational and institutional norms and practices encourage and reward collective action and collective distribution of resources. The “As Is” score for Mexico on institutional Collectivism was medium (4.06). Its score was in the second group (of four) in the distribution of all GLOBE country scores and its rank was low (38) in comparison to other countries. Riding (1989) stated that Mexican men often feel little solidarity with society outside their own family and that community approaches to shared problems are rare. This may reflect their disappointment and frustration with most society-wide institutions, especially those related to government. It should be noted here that Mexico was high in In-Group Collectivism, which indicates identification and loyalty to one's family and organizations. In-Group Collectivism is prominent in Mexican society and is described later in this section. Mexico's “Should Be” score on Institutional Collectivism was medium-high (4.92). Its rank was 23 in the distribution of all country scores, placing it near the top of the second group of scores. The difference between “Should Be” and “As Is” scores was not large (0.86). This indicates that Mexican respondents might like slightly more collectivism in their institutions. Both “As Is” and “Should Be” scores are consistent with the increasing activities of diverse interest groups in Mexican society.
Gender Egalitarianism indicates the extent that a society minimizes gender role differences. A score of 4 on this scale indicates Gender Egalitarianism, scores higher than 4 indicate greater female orientation, and scores lower than 4 indicate greater male orientation. The “As Is” score for Mexico for Gender Egalitarianism is medium (3.64), it is in the first of three groups on the distribution of all country scores on this dimension, and ranks 16 out of 61 countries. Mexico's “As Is” score reflects a slight male orientation, but its rank and grouping place it high in contrast to other GLOBE countries. Mexico's “Should Be” score on this dimension is medium-high (4.73), it is in the top group on the all country distribution, and its rank is 24 out of 61 countries. The difference between “Should Be” and “As Is” scores on this dimension is 1.09, indicating some desire by Mexican respondents for more female orientation in their society. As noted earlier, women are increasingly becoming leaders in business but their participation in politics is still very limited. Female entrepreneurs in Mexico believe that attitudes of machismo still represent a major obstacle to the growth and development of their businesses (Zabludovsky, 1998).
Humane Orientation
Humane Orientation reflects the degree to which a society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others. The “As Is” score in Mexico for Humane Orientation is medium (3.98) and in the third of four groups on the distribution of all country scores for this dimension. It ranks 34 out of 61 countries. Mexico's “Should Be” score on this dimension is medium-high (5.10). It is also in the third of five groups on the distribution of all country scores, but its rank is fairly low at 55 out of 61 countries. Most GLOBE respondents indicated that their society should emphasize much more Humane Orientation resulting in even higher “Should Be” scores than in Mexico. The difference between “Should Be” and “As Is” scores on this dimension is 1.12, indicating Mexicans also desire more Humane Orientation for their society. Humane Orientation relates closely to the importance of maintaining pleasant interpersonal relations, which is a major leadership theme that emerged from the focus groups and interviews.
Power Distance
Power Distance is the degree to which members of a society accept unequal distributions of power in their institutions and society in general. The “As Is” score in Mexico for Power Distance is fairly high (5.22) and is near the top of the second of four groups on the distribution of all GLOBE country scores. Its rank is 30 out of 61 countries. Mexicans are the product of two cultures that emphasized authoritarianism and omnipotence by leaders—the indigenous theocratic and militaristic Aztecs, and the Spanish conquerors who imposed a highly centralized colonial government and Catholicism, as well as their language (Riding, 1989). The Power Distance score for Mexico is reflected in Mexican workers’ respect for formal authority as shown by hierarchical position. Status and titles are crucial throughout society. Power and authority have traditionally resided at the top of organizations. Workers expect managers to provide direction, make final decisions, and draw clear status lines between managers and workers. One coauthor was a staff member in a non-PRI state government for several years. In the governor's meetings with his ministers, not one minister ever openly disagreed with the governor's opinions. Centralized decision making is also the norm in large Mexican business organizations (grupos), where individual families often control many companies.
Mexico's “Should Be” score on Power Distance was considerably lower (2.85) than the “As Is” score (this was true for many GLOBE countries). The “Should Be” score for Mexico was in the third of five groups on the distribution of all GLOBE country scores for this dimension, and it ranked 19 out of 61 countries. The difference between the “Should Be” score and “As Is” score on this dimension for Mexico was –2.37. This indicates that Mexicans desire much less Power Distance in their society, as do most of the respondents throughout the GLOBE countries that were studied. This desire among Mexicans may reflect a gradual increase in the education of the Mexican workforce, the desire for a “fairer” society where they can influence their future, and the use of Western management methods such as Total Quality Management and self-managed work teams. These techniques require more lateral communication and interaction, as well as initiative and self-leadership by workers. Many Mexicans may see the need for change in their managers’ views of power and authority in order to compete in a global economy. These changes are most likely to occur in industries utilizing more advanced technologies that require a highly educated workforce. When the non-PRI governor's party (described earlier) eventually lost power, several ministers, who had never disagreed with their governor, stated that a more open expression of their real opinions may have prevented the loss. They vowed to reduce the Power Distance and state their opinions in their next political experience.
In-Group Collectivism
In-Group Collectivism is the extent to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations and families. The “As Is” score for Mexico on In-Group Collectivism is high (5.71), and the highest of three groups on the all country distribution for this dimension. It ranks 12 out of 61 GLOBE countries. Díaz-Loving (1999) indicated that the extended family is the principal safe haven in Mexican society where emotions can be shown without risk, unquestioned loyalty is guaranteed, and customs are maintained. A large personal network of family and friends is the primary source of support for Mexicans, as well as other Latin Americans. Rather than depending on public institutions and resources, Mexicans develop intimate support systems by marriage, coparenting, and patron–client relationships (Wolf, 1966; Wolf & Hansen, 1972). Because of the importance of the extended family, staying close to roots and home has been highly valued. As one participant in the focus groups stated: “We grow up … and we continue to depend on our parents. … There is a feeling of unity, of love that exists until you cease to exist.” Mexico's “Should Be” score on In-Group Collectivism was high (5.95), placing it at the top of the second group of the all-country distribution. Mexico ranks 14 on the “Should Be” scores for this dimension. The difference between the “Should Be” and “As Is” scores for this dimension is 0.24, indicating that Mexican respondents are content with the high level of In-Group Collectivism displayed in their culture. Although increasing numbers of Mexican managers recognize the need for less hierarchical and patriarchal patterns of authority in order to compete successfully in the global market place, they continue to honor the importance of the family. These managers believe that these values contribute to cohesion and productivity within their organizations (Martínez, 2000).
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which individuals in a society seek to alleviate the unpredictability of future events by relying on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic procedures. The “As Is” score for Mexico on this dimension is medium (4.18) and it is in the second of four groups in the distribution of all country scores on this dimension. It ranks 26 out of 61 countries. The “Should Be” score for Mexico on Uncertainty Avoidance is high (5.26), in the top group on the all country distribution, and ranking 9 out of 61 countries. The difference between the “Should Be” and “As Is” scores for this dimension is 1.08. It appears that Mexicans believe their institutions should engage in somewhat more normative and bureaucratic control to avoid the unpredictability of future events. Mexican managers and entrepreneurs deal with great uncertainty in their economic environment: lack of available credit; fluctuating interest and inflation rates; volatile currency values; and the radical changes in the economic structure that have been implemented during the past 20 years. Successful Mexican entrepreneurs and managers have learned to be flexible, respond quickly, and improvise in order to survive. Mexican workers do value job security and may have a slight preference for close supervision rather than working on their own, although this preference may also reflect their lack of power and other conditions for working independently.
Summary of GLOBE Culture Dimensions
The Mexican scores on the GLOBE dimensions portray a society with an interesting cultural configuration that has several noteworthy elements. A few dimensions stood out in comparison to other societal cultures. Particularly striking is the very high “As Is” score and rank for In-Group Collectivism, which is consistent with the importance of the family in Mexican life. In comparison to other countries, the “As Is” score for the Assertiveness dimension is also high. These cultural dimensions reflect traditional values and beliefs in Mexican society—the importance of family within a male-oriented society. Somewhat to our surprise, the “As Is” score on Gender Egalitarianism for Mexico was in the top country grouping, but still reflects a slight male orientation for the societal culture. In contrast to the “As Is” scores, which reflect cultural practice, the “Should Be” scores reflect cultural values. When considering these “Should Be” scores, it is apparent that the high In-Group Collectivism in the “As Is” score continues to be viewed favorably as respondents indicated no desire to change or alter the importance of this dimension. In contrast, there was a significant desire by respondents to reduce levels of Power Distance, but increase the level of Gender Egalitarianism. The “Should Be” scores also showed a desire for appreciably more Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, and Uncertainty Avoidance in Mexican society and organizations. These desires reflect recognition of the importance of planning and preparing for high performance and rapid change in organizations if Mexico is to be successful in its continued development and internationalization of its economy. The increased desire for practices to reduce uncertainty reflects Mexicans’ concerns for the lack of economic stability of their country in recent years.
Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theories
A central question investigated in the GLOBE project is the extent to which specific leader characteristics and behaviors are universally endorsed in all cultures as aspects of outstanding leadership, and the extent to which other characteristics and behaviors are attributed to outstanding leaders only in certain countries or cultures (House et al., 1999). Considerable research evidence exists showing that individuals develop implicit leadership theories or prototypes about the characteristics and behaviors they believe differentiate leaders from non-leaders, effective from ineffective leaders, and moral from evil leaders (Lord & Maher, 1991). A follower's implicit leadership theory affects how she or he reacts to a leader and leaders are more influential with followers when their perceived characteristics and behavior match the implicit leadership theories of followers (Hanges, Braverman, & Renstch, 1991; Hanges et al., 1997; Lord & Maher, 1991).
Implicit leadership theories have been shown to be related to specific dimensions of national culture (House et al., 1999). Because these cultural dimensions vary across countries, this implies that implicit leadership theories will also vary. Culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (CLTs) represent the varying configurations of leader characteristics and behaviors that comprise predominant implicit leadership theories in different countries and cultures. A major hypothesis of the GLOBE project (to be tested in the next phase) is that when a leader's characteristics and behaviors are congruent with his or her CLT, the leader will be highly effective within his or her own culture (House et al., 1999, 2004).
GLOBE Leadership Dimensions and CLTs
Existing leadership theory and factor analysis of the GLOBE leadership questionnaires resulted in 21 first-order factors and 6 second-order factors, which comprise the elements of CLTs investigated in GLOBE. These first-and second-order factors are described in Table 20.3 and the quantitative results for Mexico from the 61-country survey are shown in Table 20.4.
The second-order leadership factors, which are called Global Leadership Dimensions, are (1) Charismatic/Value-Based, (2) Team Oriented, (3) Self-Protective, (4) Participative, (5) Humane, and (6) Autonomous. As explained in the first footnote for Table 20.4, the GLOBE country scores on each Leadership Dimension were placed in several groups that ranged from the highest scores on this dimension to the lowest scores. The first group (A) represents the countries with the highest scores, the second group (B) the next highest, and so on. The number of groups for each dimension depends on the amount of variability within each dimension.
Charismatic/Value-Based and Team-Oriented leadership were strongly endorsed as facilitating outstanding leadership in Mexico. However, these two factors were also strongly endorsed in most GLOBE countries. This resulted in Mexico's score on Charismatic/Value-Based leadership (5.66) being in the fourth (D) group out of eight groups on the distribution of all GLOBE country scores on this factor. It ranked 47 out of 61 countries (see Table 20.4).
Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Dimensions (GLOBE Study)
| Leadership Dimensions | Questionnaire Items |
| Charismatic/Value-Based | |
| Visionary | Visionary, foresight, anticipatory, prepared, intellectually stimulating, future oriented, plans ahead, inspirational |
| Inspirational | Enthusiastic, positive, encouraging, morale booster, motive arouser, confidence builder, dynamic, motivational |
| Self-Sacrificial | Risk taker, self-sacrificial, convincing |
| Integrity | Honest, sincere, just, trustworthy |
| Decisive | Willful, decisive, logical, intuitive |
| Performance Oriented | Improvement, excellence, and performance oriented |
| Team Oriented | |
| Collaborative Orientation | Group oriented, collaborative, loyal, consultative, mediator, fraternal |
| Team Integrator | Clear, integrator, not subdued, informed, communicative, coordinator, team builder |
| Diplomatic | Diplomatic, worldly, win/win problem solver, effective bargainer |
| Malevolent (reverse scored) | Irritable, vindictive, egoistic, noncooperative, cynical, hostile, dishonest, nondependable, not intelligent |
| Administratively Competent | Orderly, administratively skilled, organized, good administrator |
| Self-Protective | |
| Self-Centered | Self-interested, nonparticipative, loner, asocial |
| Status-Consciousness | Status-conscious, class-conscious |
| Conflict Inducer | Intragroup competitor, secretive, normative |
| Face Saver | Indirect, avoids negatives, evasive |
| Procedural | Ritualistic, formal, habitual, cautious, procedural |
| Participative | |
| Autocratic (reverse scored) | Autocratic, dictatorial, bossy, elitist, ruler, domineering |
| Nonparticipative (reverse scored) | Individually oriented, nonegalitarian, micro manager, nondelegator |
| Humane | |
| Humane Orientation | Generous, compassionate |
| Modesty | Modest, self-effacing, patient |
| Autonomous | Individualistic, independent, autonomous, unique |
Note. Second-order factors are in bold letters; first-order factors are grouped under the appropriate second-order factor. Source: Adapted From House et al. (1999). Copyright 1999 by JAI Press. Adapted by permission.
Mean, Grouping, and Rank on First- and Second-Order CLT Leadership Factors for Mexico
| Leadership Factor | Mean | Groupa | Rank |
| Charismatic/Value-Based | 5.66 | D | 47 |
| Visionary | 5.78 | C | 50 |
| Inspirational | 5.91 | C | 46 |
| Self-Sacrificial | 4.80 | B | 46 |
| Integrity | 5.77 | C | 48 |
| Decisive | 5.54 | B | 52 |
| Performance Oriented | 6.14 | B | 25 |
| Team Oriented | 5.74 | B | 38 |
| Collaborative Oriented | 5.85 | B | 35 |
| Team Integrator | 5.54 | B | 27 |
| Diplomatic | 5.55 | A | 31 |
| Malevolent (reverse scored) | 2.09 (5.91) | B | 11 |
| Administratively Competent | 5.92 | B | 23 |
| Self-Protective | 3.86 | C | 11 |
| Self-Centered | 2.52 | B | 11 |
| Status Consciousness | 4.64 | B | 18 |
| Conflict Inducer | 4.27 | B | 17 |
| Face Saver | 3.34 | B | 15 |
| Procedural | 4.48 | A | 8 |
| Participative | 4.64 | F | 59 |
| Autocratic (reverse scored) | 3.35 (4.65) | B | 4 |
| Nonparticipative (reverse scored) | 3.38 (4.62) | A | 5 |
| Humane | 4.72 | C | 41 |
| Humane Orientation | 4.72 | B | 33 |
| Modesty | 4.74 | B | 44 |
| Autonomousb | 3.86 | B | 31 |
aThe first group (A) represents the highest scores, the second group (B) the next highest, and so on. The groups were formed using the following “banding” procedure. This procedure uses the mean score on each Leadership Dimension along with the standard error of estimate (a measure of dispersion) from the total data set to calculate “bands” of similarly rated countries. The number of bands (groups) for each leadership factor depends on the amount of variance (standard error) for each factor. There are significant differences between groups, but no significant differences within each group.
bThe autonomous second-order leadership factor was composed of a single first-order factor with the same name.
The first-order factor labeled Performance Oriented produced the highest score in Mexico of the six first-order factors that comprise Charismatic/Value-Based leadership. The score for Mexico on the Performance Oriented factor was 6.14 and it ranked 25 in comparison to other GLOBE country scores. Inspirational (5.91), Visionary (5.78), and Integrity (5.77) also produced medium-high ratings as first-order factors of Charismatic/Value-Based leadership. As noted earlier, Mexicans continuously honor and celebrate their charismatic revolutionary leaders, and current leaders may adopt a historical charismatic leader as a “spiritual” adviser. Guerilla leader “Marcos” of the Zapatista Army for National Liberation recently declared that Francisco Villa and Emiliano Zapata were his spiritual advisers (García, 2001).
Mexico's score on Team-Oriented leadership was 5.74, the second (B) group of five groups in the distribution of all GLOBE country scores on this factor. Its rank was 38 out of 61 countries. Three first-order factors that comprise Team Oriented leadership resulted in medium-high scores in Mexico. Administratively competent (5.92), Nonmalevolent (5.91), and Team Integrator (5.54) were rated as important for outstanding leadership. Mexican respondents clearly believe in the importance of Charismatic/Value-Based and Team Oriented leadership, although there are many countries in the GLOBE sample that rate these leadership dimensions even higher in importance.
Humane and Participative leadership were rated slightly above the midpoint (“has no impact”) in terms of their importance for outstanding leadership. Humane (4.72) was in the third (C) of five groups on the distribution of all country scores, ranking 41 out of 61 countries. Participative (4.64) was in the sixth (F) of six groups and ranked 59 out of 61 countries. All of the first-order factors in these two leadership dimensions produced scores near the scale midpoints in Mexico. Though Mexicans view a humane orientation and participative approach as barely positive contributors to outstanding leadership, the relatively low score on participative leadership was striking, but not surprising. Dorfman et al. (1997) recently noted that in many parts of Mexico, the “authoritarian tradition … still resists incursions of western liberalism, including seeking input from all levels for decision making. Participative leadership, as practiced in Western Europe and North America, requires individualistic followers, trusting relationships between managers and followers and a firm structure for participation” (p. 242). These conditions are not generally found in Mexican organizations. Prior research has shown that Mexican workers do not respond well to participative approaches by their managerial leaders (Dorfman et al., 1997), although the media analysis showed that some Mexican managers may adopt participative approaches in order to compete in the global economy.
An example showing the ineffectiveness of participative leadership in a rural area of Mexico was provided by one of our coauthors, who had the responsibility of creating a group of agricultural extension experts to operate agriculture support programs that represented about $44 million. At first, he chose a participative and humane-oriented leader who behaved democratically with a strong interest in his followers’ welfare. The results were not impressive. The group failed to develop a sense of being a team. The humane behavior by the leader was not appreciated, and the participative behavior was considered either to be a weakness or lack of knowledge. The programs were primarily labeled as failures or mistakes and much conflict developed among the group members. One year later, he decided to let the group choose a new leader. This new person met the profile of a charismatic and team-oriented leader. He was already known to be competent and trustworthy, but he was also visionary and enthusiastic. He used a directive approach by requiring followers to collaborate and integrate their efforts to reach overall program goals. Within 1 month, team performance improved significantly. Members became proud to belong to the team. Technological advances were implemented, new resources were located, and team efficiency reached a new high.
Self-Protective and Autonomous were global leadership dimensions that resulted in scores slightly below the scale midpoints. Self-Protective (3.86) was in the third (C) of nine groups on the distribution and ranked 11 out of 61 countries. Several writers state that formal, and sometimes obscure, language is a prime strategy for self-protection for Mexicans (Paz, 1959; Ramos, 1976). It allows them to protect their emotions, avoid confrontations, and be conciliatory in a society that often functions through relationships of power. By being ambiguous in their directives, managers can avoid accountability. Like the oracle at Delphi where intermediaries were employed to interpret the meaning of what was said, the manager can then blame the interpreter rather than take responsibility for being wrong (Martínez, 2000). However, this does not promote direct and efficient communication required for competitive firms. Autonomous (3.86) was in the second (B) of four groups and ranked 31 out of 61 countries. It appears that Mexicans do not reject self-protective behaviors by outstanding leaders to the same degree as workers in most other GLOBE countries.
Non-GLOBE Leadership Dimension
Strong paternalistic attitudes in Mexico contribute to employees’ expectations of job security and to be looked after by their manager as a person, not only as an employee (Dorfman & Howell, 1983). Although salaries are usually low, there is often greater institutional bureaucratic protection in Latin organizations in comparison to organizations in English-speaking countries. Mexican companies have a significant legal responsibility for the welfare of their workers. Having a job is considered a social right in Mexico. Workers in large organizations often expect to be treated as part of the extended family of their boss, to be taken care of with courtesy and friendliness. Large employers are expected to provide food baskets and medical care for workers and their families. Organizations often celebrate numerous holidays and throw parties for various events. Many of these expectations are contained in collective bargaining agreements. Managers and supervisors usually maintain a social distance from followers, and command respect and loyalty in the image of a patrón or father figure (Teagarden, Butler, Von Gilnow, 1992). The roots of paternalism in organizations lie in the strong patriarchal nature of most Mexican families and are embedded in the society itself.
Mexico Versus Other Latin American and GLOBE Countries
Figure 20.1 presents a summary profile of GLOBE implicit leadership theory dimensions for Mexico, all Latin American countries, and all countries in the GLOBE sample. The vertical scale in Fig. 20.1 is taken directly from the GLOBE rating scales used in the surveys of middle managers for all the CLT leadership scales. As noted earlier, it measures the degree that a leadership factor is perceived to contribute to or inhibit a person from being an outstanding leader. All ratings presented in Fig. 20.1 are raw scores.
Charismatic/Value-Based and Team-Oriented leadership are the major contributors to Mexican's CLTs for outstanding leadership, although the score for Charismatic/Value-Based is slightly lower than the average for Latin America. Participative and Humane also contribute a minor amount to the CLTs for Mexico although the participation score appears lower in Mexico than in other Latin American and all GLOBE countries. Mexico's scores on Autonomous and Self-Protective show that these factors have little if any perceived impact on Mexican's CLTs for outstanding leadership. Figure 20.1 also shows that Mexicans do not believe these last two factors inhibit outstanding leadership to the same extent as respondents in other countries. Mexico's history and culture may have created a milieu that encourages acceptance of leaders who are self-protective and autonomous in their behavior.
Each country in the GLOBE project has been placed in 1 of 10 “country clusters” based on extensive anthropological data. Discriminant function analysis of country scores on the GLOBE culture dimensions was used to validate the placement of each country within a country cluster. The country clusters are Eastern Europe, Latin Europe, Germanic Europe, Nordic Europe, Sub-Sahara Africa, Confucian Asia, Southern Asia, Latin America, Middle East, and Anglo. Mexico has been placed in the Latin America cluster. GLOBE researchers have also analyzed the CLT leadership factor dimensions for each country and cluster after adjusting the scores for response biases that vary with different countries. That is, respondents in some countries simply gave higher ratings on the GLOBE survey questionnaires than did respondents in other countries. Respondents in other countries avoid the use of extreme scores. By adjusting the scores (standardizing each score with regard to each respondent's other scores on the comprehensive GLOBE surveys), these response biases are removed. In addition, the adjusted scores indicate the relative importance of each CLT dimension in comparison to other CLT dimensions in a given country.
Figure 20.1 CLT leadership factors for Mexico and all Latin American countries.
The relative (adjusted) scores in Mexico and other Latin American countries show that team-oriented leadership is especially important. Self-protective leadership was not viewed as negatively as in other country clusters, and autonomous leadership was rated lower (less desirable) than in other country clusters.
5. LIMITATIONS OF THE GLOBE PROJECT AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In a country as large and diverse as Mexico, we could not expect to capture all the regional cultural influences that are likely to affect leadership prototypes in the country. We sampled 152 managers in two industries and in two different regions of Mexico. Both regions have very active business communities, although one region borders the United States and may reflect a stronger management influence from its northern neighbor. Other regional variations in culture and leadership probably occur and recent research shows that managers in Mexico must be sensitive to regional culture in order to be effective (Howell, Romero, Dorfman, & Paul, 2003).
We included researchers from both the United States and Mexico on this project to try to provide separate perspectives. However, the strong influence of U.S. management practices in Mexico and the fact that four of the authors were educated in the United States may provide some bias to our conclusions.
The survey questionnaires that elicited data for the culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories asked respondents to describe “outstanding leaders” in their country. There may be a bias in this method that results in omitting descriptions of less charismatic leaders who do not necessarily “stand out” but are nevertheless very effective. This could be one reason that Charismatic/Value-Based leadership is endorsed as a major part of the CLTs for nearly all the GLOBE countries.
Finally, the quantitative research reported in this chapter deals with perceptions of culture and prototypes (CLTs) of outstanding leaders in Mexico. This research does not directly address the effectiveness of these leaders. GLOBE research is now under way that explores the fit between the actual behavior of Mexican leaders and these prototypes. This research focuses on CEOs in each country and should provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of leaders whose behavior fits their countries culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory. This is clearly the necessary “next step” in making the GLOBE findings most useful for managerial leadership in Mexico. Another useful extension of this research would be to gather data on CLTs from nonmanagerial workers in Mexico and to compare these findings with those reported here.
The variety of information and data gathered for the GLOBE research project have helped to identify several themes that characterize Mexican culture and the leadership styles that reflect these themes. Some of the themes and leadership styles are traditional and directly reflect Mexican history and the type of leadership that has been common during this history. Other themes and leadership styles are emerging as Mexico is becoming highly involved in international business activities through maquiladora operations, joint ventures, Mexican multinational corporations, international agreements (such as the NAFTA) and membership in the World Trade Organization. The material presented in this chapter is integrated in this section by describing these cultural themes and what they imply for effective leadership in Mexico. These themes should be recognized and understood by expatriate individuals working in Mexico.
Traditional Themes
A dominating orientation (Assertiveness) and the Mexican tendency to accept that power is distributed unequally in society and its institutions (Power Distance) were clear in the GLOBE quantitative measures of societal culture. This tendency reflects the hierarchical power wielded by theocratic, autocratic, and militaristic rulers throughout much of Mexican history. These leaders were often oppressive, but sometimes highly charismatic. Assertiveness and power distance are consistent with the effectiveness of directive leadership found in empirical studies of leadership in Mexico cited earlier. These leaders may also be somewhat autonomous and self-protective in their leadership styles. This was shown in the GLOBE CLT data indicating that Mexicans accept self-protective behavior by leaders more so than individuals in most other GLOBE countries. This autonomy and self-protective behavior may be essential for survival when high-level leaders hold absolute power. This concern still lives as Mexicans expressed a need for even more uncertainty avoidance in their institutions (shown in the GLOBE culture measures) to protect themselves against unforeseeable events.
High assertiveness and power distance are also consistent with the importance of Charismatic/Value-Based leadership found in the GLOBE data and the focus group discussions, although this leadership factor was not endorsed as strongly as in most GLOBE countries or other Latin American countries. Charismatic leadership in Mexico has traditionally been represented by a strongly directive and masculine (machismo) image of a leader. But the strongest element of charismatic leadership in Mexico from the GLOBE data was a concern for performance orientation. This showed that Mexicans expect their leaders to strongly emphasize excellence and continuous improvement in their organizations. Because the traditional Mexican family has often expected loyalty and abnegation by children, this may have made many Mexicans willing followers of powerful charismatic and directive leaders. The willingness to accept power differences may also influence the effectiveness of a leader's contingent reward behavior in Mexico, as powerful leaders are expected to bestow rewards on favored followers. It appears that the high power distance of Mexican culture is pervasive in its influence on a Mexican's perception of the characteristics of outstanding leaders.
The importance of the family in Mexican culture is shown by high levels of In-Group Collectivism in the quantitative GLOBE data, as well as in the interviews and the literature on Mexican history and culture. Contemporary Mexican society, like others in Latin America, emerged from a complex tradition of agrarian life with domination by oppressive rulers, many of whom had little concern for the care and nurturance of the common people. Kinship has played a critical role in survival as Mexicans turned to their families for a safe haven and support throughout their lives. The same patterns of affiliation and support are also established and maintained in work organizations as Mexicans develop trusting relationships with coworkers and business associates to help them achieve their goals. The supremacy of the father in Mexican families is replicated in work organizations by patriarchal leadership patterns in family-owned businesses, which are extremely common in Mexico. Numerous large Mexican business groups, known as grupos, have evolved from and operate based on strong family ties and traditions. The family structure is also found in the high level of paternalism demonstrated by leaders toward workers by providing food baskets, cafeterias, medical care, transportation, loans, numerous holidays, as well as personal care and concern for individuals apart from their organizational roles (although salaries often remain at low levels). The importance of supportive leadership behaviors in Mexican work organizations has been shown in published empirical research and probably reflects the traditional paternalistic tendencies of Mexican leaders. These leadership patterns emerged repeatedly in the interview data, focus groups, and published leadership research. Family membership, structure, and role requirements have a major influence on the self-concept of most Mexicans and this carries into their conception of an outstanding leader.
Mexicans typically emphasize developing and maintaining pleasant social/interpersonal relations with people they interact with, including their business associates, coworkers, and followers. This emerged repeatedly in the interviews as well as the literature on Mexican social customs. Treating people with courtesy and respect and developing trust are dominant guidelines in Mexico for interpersonal relations. The simpático shown by Mexican leaders who demonstrate acute sensitivity to the dignity and worth of individuals by displaying empathy and respect demonstrates the importance placed on interpersonal relations in Mexico. This is also shown by the value placed on personal networks in business dealings. Mexican executives prefer to conduct business with people they know and trust. The first question a person often asks when dealing with an organization is: “Do I know someone there, or do I have a friend or acquaintance who may know someone in that organization?” Business leaders often emphasize trust and friendship networks more than costs and profits. Manipulating the social environment to control personal and organizational achievements requires interpersonal sensitivity, skill, and a belief in the efficacy of personal networks. Positive interpersonal relations are a cardinal element in the Mexicans’ view of an effective leader.
Emerging Themes
A corollary of the high assertiveness (tough and dominating) and high power distance of traditional Mexican culture is that individuals with little formal power have had very little influence and involvement in determining organizational policies and practices. This was shown in the GLOBE CLT data where participative leadership approaches were rated only slightly above “no impact” in terms of their contribution to outstanding leadership in Mexico. Mexico ranked 59 out of 61 GLOBE countries in importance placed on participative leadership. This assessment of participation in Mexican organizations was supported in the semistructured interviews and in the published empirical research on leadership in Mexico. Studies show that participative leadership has generally had little impact on followers’ attitudes and performance in Mexico.
This traditional view of participation may be changing. In several industrial centers, including the urban border area shared with the United States, there is an increased interest in participative management approaches. This corresponds with the increasing numbers of joint ventures and maquiladora operations in Mexico, where popular international management styles are being tried with some apparent success. This was evident in the media analysis and the focus group discussions. A type of participative involvement was discussed, which differs from approaches that are popular in the United States and Europe, but may be similar to that found in Asian countries (which are often high in power distance). With this approach, leaders were expected to make decisions and design strategies, which they then discussed with followers who would eventually carry them out. There is an active give-and-take between leaders and followers regarding how decisions and strategies are implemented. These discussions may jump from one issue to another, but the skillful leader can apparently manage multiple discussions at one time. The key point of these discussions was that all individuals who were involved had an opportunity to make an input for discussion. Leaders who obtain follower input in this manner represent a significant change from the strongly centralized autocratic approaches that have been traditional in Mexico. Once this input is made and discussed, followers may be less concerned that their ideas are implemented than in the United States. One empresario gathers information from all his production and administrative staff before he makes a decision. He stated: “I have the last word, but apart from that, we work together in the battle to improve the quality of our product” (Martínez, 2000, p. 106). The increasing popularity of participative approaches may also be indicated by the GLOBE culture data showing that Mexicans believe there should be much less emphasis on power distance in their society. We expect the changing portrait of Mexican society and organizations to include more participative leadership of some type in the 21st century.
Current societal trends in Mexico indicate increasing involvement of different groups to influence government policies and practices. The increasing importance of collective/team efforts inside Mexican organizations may be indicated by the high score for team-oriented leadership in the GLOBE CLT data. Team Oriented leadership was rated the highest of the CLT leadership factors that contributed to outstanding leadership in Mexico. This factor includes being diplomatic, collaborative, integrative, and administratively competent. It should be noted that both directive and participative leadership approaches can be important in producing team effectiveness. Directive leadership is often useful early in a team's development, whereas participation becomes effective later on. A team orientation shows recognition of the importance of collective effort to compete in Mexico's changing economy and may be an organizational extension of family collectivism in Mexico.
GLOBE respondents expressed a strong desire for more performance orientation and future orientation in their institutions and organizations. This probably reflects the many changes occurring in Mexican society as Mexico becomes an increasingly important member of the international business community. Mexicans recognize the importance of emphasizing planning and performance in order to compete successfully in international markets. This includes recognition of the value of new technologies as armor in the competitive arenas they face. The institutionalization of current management processes and programs (such as Total Quality Management) is becoming an important trend in many Mexican organizations. The “mañana culture,” often attributed to Mexico by outsiders, is inconsistent with a growing achievement orientation in Mexico.
The GLOBE culture data showed some desire for a stronger Humane Orientation and Gender Egalitarianism in Mexican society. This surely reflects a long-term desire among Mexicans for more opportunity, self-development, and control of their lives. It may also reflect the increasing internationalization of the business community and the recognition that all of Mexico's human resources must be nurtured and developed in order to be competitive. The increasing importance of leaders developing followers’ potential was evident in the ethnographic interviews and probably signals a move toward less machismo in Mexican leadership styles.
Summary
In summary, the following themes and leadership styles should be carefully considered by expatriate managers, others working in Mexico, or those working with Mexican organizations. Historical cultural values in Mexico (such as traditionalism, assertiveness, and high Power Distance) have resulted in society viewing outstanding leaders as highly directive, charismatic, rewarding, and autocratic, and sometimes autonomous and self-protective. These leaders are also often patriarchal, paternalistic, and supportive of followers (reflecting high In-Group Collectivism) and they emphasize maintaining pleasant interpersonal relations (another important cultural value) through showing respect and empathy (simpático) for others. These leaders often seek to attain objectives through social influence and personal networks. Evolving cultural changes point to increases in Participative and Team Oriented leadership styles in Mexico. A stronger leadership focus on Performance and Future Orientation is also indicated as well as some added concern for creating more Humane and Gender Egalitarian organizations. These emerging leadership trends undoubtedly reflect the internationalization of business in Mexico and its anticipated major role in the highly competitive world economy of the 21st century.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank James Krippner-Martinez and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback during the development of this chapter. Sandra M. Martinez's research was supported by a National Security Education Program Doctoral Fellowship.
REFERENCES
Agar, M. (1998). Ethnography manual for leadership study. Working Paper. Takoma Park, MD.
Alduncin, A. E. (1986). Los valores de los Mexicanos [The values of the Mexican people]. México City: Banamex, Fomento Cultural Banamex.
Ardila, R. (1979). Psicología social de la pobreza [The social psychology of poverty]. In J. O. Whittaker (Ed.), La psicología social en el mundo de hoy (pp. 399–418). México City: Editorial Trillas.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bonfil Batalla, G. (1987). México profundo: Una civilización negada [Rural Mexico: Reclaiming a civilization]. México City: CIESAS-SEP.
Chemers, M. M., & Aymen, R. (1985). Leadership orientation as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction of Mexican managers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 359–367.
Cosío Villegas, D. (1955). Historia moderna de México [Modern history of Mexico] (2nd ed.). México City: Editorial Hermes.
Davis, J. H., Ming, L. W., & Brosnan, T. F. (1986). The Farmer–Richman model: A bibliographic essay emphasizing applicability to Singapore and Indonesia. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
de la Cerda Gastélum, J. (1995). Los laberintos del mejoramiento [The labyrinths of advancement]. México City: Editorial Iberoamérica.
Derossi, F. (1971). The Mexican entrepreneur. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Díaz-Loving, R. (1999). The indigenisation of psychology: Birth of a new science or rekindling of an old one? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 433–449.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1983). Management practices and personnel policies of the maquiladoras—a cooperative manufacturing effort between the United States and México. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1997). Managerial leadership in the United States and México: Distant neighbors or close cousins? In S. K. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross-cultural work groups (pp. 234–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dorfman, P., Howell, J., Hibino, S., Lee, J., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233–274.
Drost, E., & Von Glinow, M.A. (1998). Leadership behavior in Mexico: Etic philosophies—emic practices. In T. A. Scandura & M. G. Serapio (Eds.), Research in International Business and International Relations, 7, 3–29.
Foster, G. (1960). Culture and conquest: American's Spanish heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
García, J. S. (2001). La entrevista insólita [The unusual interview]. Proceso, 1271(March 11), 11–16.
Gutiérrez, S. (1993). Can you make it in México? Financial Executive, 9(2), 20–23.
Hanges, P. J., Braverman, E. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1991). Changes in raters’ impressions of subordinates: A catastrophe model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 878–888.
Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Sipe, W. P., Smith, W. C., & Brown, D. J. (1997). Leadership and gender bias: Dynamic measures and nonlinear modeling. Symposium presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.
Horgan, P. (1984). Great river: The Rio Grande in North American history (4th ed.). Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V.,& GLOBE Associates. (2004). Cultures, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations—Project GLOBE. Advances in Global Leadership, 1, 171–233.
Howell, J. P., Romero, E. J., Dorfman, P. W., & Paul, J. (2003). Effective leadership in the Mexican maquiladora: Challenging common expectations. Journal of International Management, 9, 51–73.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. (1990). Censo de población y vivienda [Census of population and housing]. Aguascalientes, México: Author.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. (1995).Censo de población y vivienda [Census of population and housing]. Aguascalientes, México: Author.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. (2002).Censo de población y vivienda [Census of population and housing]. Aguascalientes, México: Author.
Kras, E. S. (1994). Modernizing Mexican management style. Las Cruces, NM: Editts Publishing.
Krauze, E. (1991). Biografía del poder [A biography of power]. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Krauze, E. (1994). Siglo de Caudillos: Biografía política de México 1810–1910 [A century of caudillos: Political biography of Mexico 1810–1910]. México: Tusquets.
Krauze, E. (2000, July 17). A new era. Time, 16–18.
Krippner-Martínez, J. (2001). Rereading the Conquest: Power, politics, and the history of early colonial Michoacán, México, 1521–1565. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Lawrence, J., & Yeh, R. (1995). On the use and effectiveness of employee involvement in México. Journal of International Management, 1(4), 389–416.
Lord, R., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin-Everyman.
Martínez, S. M. (2000). An ethnographic study of the Mexican entrepreneur: A configuration of themes and roles impacting managerial leadership in an emerging economy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(01A).
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Meyer, M. C., Sherman, W. L., & Deeds, S. M. (1999). The course of Mexican history (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mulder, M. (1976). Reductions of power differences in practice: The power instance reduction theory and its application. In G. Hofstede & M. S. Kassen (Eds.), European contributions to organization theory (pp. 79–94). Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Parkes, H. B. (1966). A history of México (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Paz, O. (1959). El laberinto de la soledad [The labyrinth of solitutde]. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Paz, O. (1981). El ogro filantrópico [The philanthropist ogre]. México City: Joaquin Mortiz.
Pelled, L. H., & Hill, K. D. (1997). Participative management in northern Mexico: A study of maquiladoras. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 197–212.
Preston, J., & Dillon, S. (2004). Opening Mexico: The making of a democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Ramos, S. (1976). El perfil del hombre y la cultura en México [An outline of Mexico's people and culture]. México City: Austral.
Rangle, C. (1977). The Latin Americans: Their love–hate relationship with the United States. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Riding, A. (1989). Distant neighbors. New York: Vintage.
Schuler, R., Jackson, S., Jackofsky, E., & Slocum, J., Jr. (1996, May–June). Managing human resources in Mexico: A cultural understanding. Business Horizons, pp. 55–61.
Sotelo Valencia, A. (1999). Globalización y precariedad del trabajo en México [Job globalization and insecurity in Mexico]. México City: El Caballito.
Stephens, G. K., & Greer, C. R. (1995). Doing business in Mexico: Understanding cultural differences. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 39–55.
Taylor, W. B. (1996). Magistrates of the sacred: Priests and parishioners in eighteenth-century Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Teagarden, M. B., Butler, M. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1992). Mexico's maquiladora industry: Where strategic human resource management makes a difference. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 34–47.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Valdés Ugalde, F. (1997). Autonomía y legitimidad: Los empresarios, la política, y el estado en México [Autonomy and legitimacy: Entrepreneurs, politics and the Mexican state]. México City, Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Vargas, G.A., & Johnson, T. W. (1993). An analysis of operational experience in the U.S./Mexico production sharing (maquiladora) program. Journal of Operations Management, 11, 17–34.
Vasconcelos, J. (1971). Breve historia de México [Brief history of Mexico]. México City: Editorial Continental.
Wolf, E. R. (1966). Kinship, friendship, and patron–client relations in complex societies. In M. Banton (Ed.), The social anthropology of complex societies (pp. 1–22). New York: Praeger.
Wolf, E. R., & Hansen, E. C. (1972). The human condition in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zabludovsky, G. (1998). Women business owners in Mexico: An emerging economic force. Silver Springs, MD: National Foundation for Women Business Owners, USA.
_______________
1Although Mexicans are still predominantly Roman Catholic, significant Protestant populations exist in many regions.
2As explained on page xx of this chapter, the term empresario in the Mexican context has a broader meaning than the term entrepreneur, as currently used in the discipline of entrepreneurship. In Mexico, an empresario can refer to both owner-managers (entrepreneurs) as well as corporate managers.
3Feminists would point out that this is a patriarchal family, though women also gain power as they marry and age. Some abuse and violence occurs within the family.
4By adopting this distinction between a business owner-manager and an individual who identifies a business opportunity then initiates and manages a dynamic business, Mexican business leaders, consultants, and academicians have begun to use the term emprendador to denote the later, more restricted definition. This distinction places value and emphasis on the entrepreneurial behavior that is associated with economic growth (Martínez, 2000).