Moni Manager

What is My Role as a Manager? BY Katrina Cooks People go to work to succeed, not to fail. It is the manager's job to understand people's strengths and weaknesses. Managers who strive to find the good in their people will achieve far more than managers who only find fault. (Author unknown)

Table of Contents: I.

Introduction

II.

Becoming a Manager within a Special Library A. Managing your Time

III.

Understanding the Responsibility A. Managing the Organization Responsibility B. Mastering the Communication Responsibility C. Assuming the Control Responsibility

IV.

Managing Diversity

V.

The Support Staff

VI.

Evaluating Employee Performance A. Appraisal tools and Manage Performance

VII.

Conclusion

VIII.

Reference

IX.

Additional Readings

I. Introduction: Imagine, coming fresh out of graduate school and being offered a position as a manager within a special library. Did all your courses in your M.L.I.S program prepare for this position? Does your work history prepare you for the responsibilities you are about to take on? Do you know what your role as a manager will be within the special library? Do you truly know what it takes to be a manager? Are you scratching your head worrying about your

first day on the job and the day after that? If your answer is “Yes” …welcome to your crash course in…“My role as a Manager?” As a manager you will have many different roles and responsibilities. “A role is a type of behavioral activity, whereas a responsibility is essentially mental, in the sense that one agrees to do something” (Evans and Wards 98). In this chapter, you will be given a brief synopsis on what it takes to become a manager within a special library, learn your responsibilities as a manager, learn how to manage diversity, get to know your support staff and learn about evaluating your employees’ performance. II. Becoming a Manager within a Special Library: Special libraries encompass specialized areas of interest which include music, laws, and medicine; just to name a few. As a manager within a special library, you must remember that the library exists to support the work of the parent institution. Your job as a manager is to make sure the goals of the library are aligned with the institution. The parent’s institution interests are your interest. The parent institution can be academic, public or business connected. A manager of a special library (and other libraries) has to keep up with the ever changing technology and stay current on new research coming out in science, education and so on. Not only do you have to keep current on new research and new technologies, but according to Ronald N. Bukoff, a special librarian also must have certain character traits. These traits are a strong sense of individuality, the ability to see the humor in most situations, the strength to react calmly under pressure and an altruistic interest in helping others: Individuality arises with the need to be flexible and adaptive to the environment of the special library and its patrons. This environment is every changing and the librarian must have the internal strength of character to recognize, identify, and resolve the myriad problems that develop, from small to large…Humor, laughter and joy will get the librarian through most of the trails and tribulations that can occur… and of course humor provides the ability to react calmly in times stress…and last, but not least in this litany of necessary survival traits, is the desire to help others. (Bridges 173) The basic skills that a manager needs are the ability to collect and analyze information, share the information, organize knowledge, build networks and believe in the principle of equity of access and treatment (Gordon 3). However, a person can’t manage someone else if they can’t manage themselves. As a manager of a special library, you need to be effective in time management. Managing your time:

If you have ever worked in any library in the past then you know that there is really never enough time to do everything. If you are not on the reference desk answering questions, you’re in meetings, going to conference and let’s not forget the unexpected visit from a patron and/or colleague. Your time is valuable, so you must not waste it.

Time

is

perishable.

money; however, once time

Time is democratic—we all have the same amount of time. Time is a nonrenewable resource. Time is even more valuable than money, because one can always get more is spent, it cannot be replaced

(Siess 2). Some people may ask, “Can you really manage time?” The answer to this question is no, but you can manage your use of time. For example, if you know the slowest part of your day is in the afternoon, go into your office and handle all the things that you could not do in the earlier part of the day like answering emails or returning phone calls. When you come into your role as a manger, keep track of your time and your activities. If you have a job duty you must do everyday, time yourself; see how long it takes you and so on. Managing the use of your time allows you to get more things done, reduce stress and have more time do other things on the job. The bottom line is this, if you can’t manage your time wisely, how can you manage someone else. II. Understanding the Responsibility: Once you become a manager, there are certain responsibilities you must take on, like managing the organizational roles, mastering communication and assuming the control responsibilities. Managing the Organization Responsibility: Managers have different roles they must play at different times (or you may have heard some managers say they wear many different hats) depending on the situation. G. Edward Evans discusses in his book three broad categories of roles that were identified by Henry Mintzberg. The three broad roles are interpersonal, informational, and decisional. Within the interpersonal category, Mintzberg identified three distinct roles which are figurehead, leader, and liaison: The manager is the individual most identified with her/his area of responsibility—he or she is the figurehead. That is, to some degree, the individual becomes the unit in the minds of others, including that person’s subordinates. The leadership role is generally understood as the trend toward greater collaborative/ team oriented work. The liaison role becomes key in developing working

relationships with units that need to interact with the manager’s unit. (Evans; Ward 96) In other words, as a manager, you will be regarded as the head; the person that brings everyone together in order to make the operations of the library run smoothly. The second broad role which is informational has three distinct roles as well which are the nerve center, disseminator and the spokesperson. The role of the nerve center involves being on the front line. Being on the front lines means you may have to deal with a lot of different things that all require your attention at that moment. In other words, there will be something you will have to set aside if another more pressing issue comes up. Evans states, “Learning to handle this role effectively is essential for the newcomer” (96). The role of the disseminator is having the ability to communicate necessary information in a timely manner. The spokesperson role is related to the figurehead role which involves being the official spokesperson for the organization. The last broad role is decisional which involves the disturbance handler, resource handler and negotiator. The disturbance handle and the negotiator roles are related in regards to being able to handle and resolve problems that may arise among the staff and/or patrons. The resource handler deals with handling and allocating resources. Allocating resources not only involves money, but the staff, equipment and even time. In the role of the resources allocator, the manager also makes judgments on how to organize the daily work activities. Mastering the Communication Responsibility: In today’s work environments, managers must be able to communicate effectively whether it is through verbal communication, electronic, written and/or listening. In the book entitled Beyond the Basics, “effective communication takes place when the person receiving the message interprets it with the identical meaning that the sender had in mind” (Evans; Ward 130). As a new manager, you must first learn the communication style of the organization. Evans and Ward state, “Some organizations may be very formal and expect anything of substance to be in written form; others are highly informal and almost everything is discussed orally. Most organizations fall somewhere in between” (132). Because of this, you will have to know when to use certain methods of communications. Sometimes email messages don’t work because the person on the receiving end may take the message the wrong way. The person may take the tone of the email to be harsher then what was originally intended. Because of the different communication styles, you will have to be able to break down communication barriers and convey your message clearly. Also, watch out for nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication involves communicating through gestures, facial expressions, posture and even eye contact. As the old saying goes, “your actions speak louder than words”, so make sure your actions don’t undermine your words.

As a manager, you will be communicating with administrators, with your staff, with vendors and suppliers and last, but not least, with the users of the library. The following are a few key points for managers to keep in mind if they want clear and effective communication: Know what to communicate. Know who needs to know what. Know who should communicate with whom. Know how to time messages. Know how to listen and read. Don’t judge and evaluate the other person. Demonstrate empathy and understanding. Be certain your verbal and nonverbal signals are congruent. Give timely, effective feedback Use language that is understandable to the other person. (Evans and Ward 152-153) Assuming the Control Responsibility: In this particular area, as a manager, you are in control of the money, budget, and planning. This maybe the first time you have actually had to handle such as task, so this area of the chapter will supply you with the basics. For starters, a “budget is an estimate of the costs for some activity over a given time frame” (Evans and Ward 164). A budget is plan that typically becomes fixed once it has been approved. The time frame of a budget is normally twelve months which is usually called the fiscal year to an organization. Your goal as a manager is to stick to the budget. You do not want to mismanage the money and overspend. This may hurt you because “funding authorities always review past spending patterns as part of the approval process. It may result in a reduction of the following year’s allocation by the amount of the over expenditure.” (Evans and Ward 164)

It must also be noted that if you under spend; you could also see a reduction in your budget. As a manager, you must know the cost of doing business, so you can predict what type of funding needs you and the library will need more accurately in the future. According to Evans and Ward the budget process consists of: Examining current economic trends and projections and review the parents’ organization’s long-range goals and plans. Periodically assess the user’s attitudes toward the service. Examining the goals of the service in terms of the parent institution and the changing needs and wants of users. Based on those assessments, develop projected needs. Examining the current operating costs and projected needs, as well as past fiscal performance and prepare a funding request. Examining the rationales for the requests for new/additional funding and prepare a budget request defense plan. Present the request to the funding authorities. Examining on a regular basis the actual operating costs in comparison to budgeted allocations. Make any necessary adjustments in order to stay on budget. Examining any variances between projected and actual costs to determine if there is a problem or just change in workload Examining variances for possible adjustments in current operations and implications for future budget requests. (165) Managing Diversity: Managing diversity isn’t an easy task, but it is something as a manager you will have to do. As you develop your style and priorities as a manager within a special library, you must understand that each person you supervise will have their own background and issues: The concept of managing diversity covers a range of groups, from persons with disabilities to cultural or ethnic minorities. Managing diverse groups often means managing people who do not share your background or values, which can lead to gaps in communication and difficulty in creating a sense of workplace community. Openness in communication and a willingness to confront these gaps in outlook will serve you well. (Gordon 100)

Because of diversity, you will have to make adjustments in your management style in order to manage different people effectively. As a manager, your aim is to create a climate of trust: A climate of trust supports individuals and where individuals take a genuine interest in other people and their ideas, are willing to listen, explore differences in a positive way, and clarify what is said and done. the aim is to help people to work together as a team and be productive and efficient. (Evans and Ward 204) Diversity management involves leadership commitment and involvement, directionsetting, a strategic action plan, accountability and responsibility, a system of measurement and an assessment process. (Evans and Wards 205) Your Support Staff: Delegate! Delegate! Delegate! You are one person, which means you can’t do everything and be everywhere. Your support staff is there to help you. Your supports staff can consist of volunteers, student assistants, technical assistants, paraprofessionals, etc. Each staff member should be assigned a specific responsibility depending on their experience. However, you must keep in mind one thing: Many support staff perceive their work in the library as “just a job”. Although these individuals will do a good job and take pride in doing their work well, they have less personal investment in the overall success of the organization. (Mosley 51) As a manager, you must remember not to undermine your non-MLS staff members. Each person has something to offer to the organization. Besides, if you are coming into a new position; a new environment, the staff members are the ones who will make your adjustment in the new position smoother because they know the institution: Many paraprofessionals possess a wealth of knowledge about a particular institution, its customers, and its procedures, built up from years of experience… separating out any group of people as less qualified, or less than capable of participating in the complicated world and work of librarianship is unfair to that group of people, undercuts the mission and goals of the organization, and reflects poorly upon the profession of librarianship itself. (Gordon 105)

Evaluating Employee Performance: The last thing that will be addressed in your crash course of your role as a manager is evaluating your employees through various appraisal tools and managing the performance of staff. Appraisal tools and Manage Performance: All managers have to face the challenge of having to evaluate their staff. As a new manager, you should discuss the appraisal process in regards to the appraisal culture of the institution with your administrative supervisors, HR representatives and the support staff being appraised. Most annual appraisal forms will consist of the employee information, quantitative or categorized ratings, and future goals or objectives (Mosley): The employee information will often include the employee’s name, ID number, title, rank and a brief description of regular responsibilities in the unit or organization. Quantitative or categorized ratings can be numerical scores, a verbal scale, or both. The verbal scale will use a range of terms such as excellent, above average, exceeds expectations… the goals or objectives section set the stage for employees to understand what will expected of them during the coming year. (Mosley 151) When preparing an evaluation it is important to focus on the facts and behavior of the individual rather than their attitude. Mosley states that a manager cannot tell an employee to be happier, less paranoid, etc. Instead the manager needs to address the behavior that results from the attitude. It is also important to remember that the evaluation must be kept private. Evaluating the performance of an employee should go smoothly, but if you feel some tension or the employee is getting upset about the evaluation, you must remain calm and not let your emotions get carried away. Talk to the employee about their performance and remain firm. However, let them share how they feel about the evaluation. From there, both you and the employee should set goals on what needs to be done or worked on in order to get a better evaluation for the next year. Conclusion: In conclusion, the role of a manager varies and cannot be addressed in one chapter. However, you should be better equipped in knowing what is expected of you in your position as a manager after finishing your studies at University Agora. Remember, this chapter was just a crash course; the test comes as you step into your role as a manager.

Resources:

Bridges, Karl. Expectations of Librarians in the 21st Century. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003. Evans, G. Edward, and Patricia Ward. Beyond the Basics:The management Guide for Library and Information Professionals. London: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 2003. Gordon, Rachel, The Accidental Library Manager. New Jersey: Information Today, Inc., 2005. Massis, Bruce, The Practical Library Manager. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press, 2003. Mosley, Pixey. Transitioning from Librarian to Middle Manager. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. Siess, Judith. Time Management Planning and Prioritization for Librarians. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002. Additional Readings: Evans, G. Edward. Performance Management and Appraisal. New York: NealSchuman Publishers, Inc., 2004. Hayes, Robert . Models for Library Management, Decision-Making and Planning. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 2001. Whitmell, Vicki. Staff Planning in a Time of Demographic Change. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005. Blumenstein, Lynn. "Librarian as CM LEA." Library Journal (2005): 38-40. Sen, Barbara. "Market Orientation: A Concept for Health Libraries." Health Information and Libraries Journal 23(2006): 23-31. Margulies, Patricia. "Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship."

Leveraging the Skills of the Corporate Librarian to Enhance the Perceived Value of Information and Sustain Communities of Practice 7:1(2006): Yamazaki, Hisamichi. "Changing Society, Role of Information Professionals and Strategy for Libraries." IFLA Journal 33:1(2007): 50-58.

Research Publication Date: 17 April 2009 ID Number: G00166922 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. Although Gartner's research may discuss legal issues related to the information technology business, Gartner does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.

Role Definition and Organizational Structure: Program and Portfolio Management Donna Fitzgerald, Audrey L. Apfel

Organizations are investing in the core capability of program and portfolio management. Roles and groups are being formalized with a variety of responsibilities. Although many models are being tried, certain basic responsibilities embodied in a small number of roles can provide a format for success. Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 2 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Analysis ................................................................................................................................ ............ 3 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Role Definition — The PPM Leader ............................................................................... 3 2.1 Senior Project Leader....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Program Manager.............................................................................................. 4 2.3 PMO Leader ......................................................................................................5 2.4 Portfolio Manager .............................................................................................5 2.5 Resource Manager...........................................................................................6 2.6 PMO Support Staff ............................................................................................ 6 2.6.1 PMO Administrator ............................................................................ 6 2.6.2 Project Support Analyst..................................................................... 7 3.0 The PPM Organization Structure ................................................................................... 7 3.1 The PMO — The Project/Program/Portfolio Management Office ..................... 8 3.2 Project/Program Office ......................................................................................8 3.3 Project Portfolio Office....................................................................................... 8

Recommended Reading.................................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Gartner PPM Definitions...................................................................................................... 3 Table 2. The Project/Program/Portfolio Management Office ............................................................8 Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 3 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

ANALYSIS

1.0 Introduction We have seen a growing set of leadership roles focused on delivering results through project, program and portfolio management. These roles vary from practitioner-based roles, such as program manager and portfolio manager, to exclusively staff management positions, such as PMO leader, and resource manager. Based on an emerging need, we have seen organizations begin the formalization of their project and program management (PPM) practices by hiring a PMO leader who then, in turn, is chartered with formalizing the previously informal project management roles. We have also seen organizations choose to begin by hiring a program manager for a single, large program (generally ERP) and then, once the program was complete, use the program office as the basis for formalizing project management throughout the organization. In fact, based on discussions with clients, this is often the most-common way for smaller organizations (200 staff members or less) to proceed. We've also seen some very large multinational companies choose to start their formalization efforts by hiring a project portfolio manager on the belief that ensuring investments in the right things automatically brings a higher return than working on the wrong things well. Like everything else, there isn't one single approach or a single right answer. Organizations will receive tangible value through better project results by choosing to invest in the right person in any of these roles. Before going any further, we should begin by agreeing on what areas the roles under discussion are intended to manage. Our working definitions are (see Table 1): Table 1. Gartner PPM Definitions Title Description Project Management The application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements (Source: Project Management Institute). Program Management The coordinated planning, management and execution of multiple related projects that are directed toward the same strategic, business or organizational objectives that generate benefits beyond those that would have been generated had they been executed individually. Portfolio Management The processes, governance and tools used to plan, create, assess, balance and communicate the execution of the IT portfolio. Source: Gartner (April 2009)

2.0 Role Definition — The PPM Leader

PPM leaders implement the processes, tools and analyses that senior executives use to make effective decisions in selecting an initiative, monitoring its execution, coordinating among initiatives competing for resources and assessing results. These leadership roles are distinguished from traditional project management roles in these ways: • Their responsibilities extend over a collection of projects taking place simultaneously. Program managers coordinate multiple — often synergistic — projects that may compete for time, attention and resources, but are directed toward a singular result. Portfolio managers prioritize time, attention and resources against a set of competing Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 4 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

projects and programs. Project managers, on the other hand, are tasked with the actual performance of specific projects. • The PPM leadership role generally extends to uniquely owning and being accountable for some aspect of the governance, methodology or standard process on "how" the PPM task is performed for the organization. • As enterprises adopt PPM as an ongoing business function, process improvement, skill development and organizational evolution become the responsibilities of PPM leaders as well. Five key positions generally fall under the umbrella of PPM — program manager, portfolio manager, resource manager, senior project leader and project management office leader. Each position is defined here with a brief overview of the responsibilities and activities that are performed. These are position descriptions and may not align with exact job titles.

2.1 Senior Project Leader At the early stages of organizational maturity, the senior project leader is often acknowledged as first among equals. Many clients have told us of groups of project managers deciding among themselves that they really ought to figure out how to manage their project better, and they have come together and picked a leader who can help them "get organized" (our hallmark of a Level 1 culture). This senior project lead position, then, is often at the forefront of the evolution from project management to the formation of the PMO or to the formation of formalized program and portfolio management activities: • As programs are formed and need to be managed, the senior project leader has the credibility and track record to begin communication and collaboration with the business. • As senior management begins to require portfolio-level transparency of all ongoing project and program activity, the senior project leader often has the reputation for accurate reporting and good financial stewardship.

2.2 Program Manager For organizations that find themselves needing to execute a large program (like ERP) before they have anything else in place, it often makes sense to start with program management as the linchpin from which to build. Generically, the program manager is responsible for the coordinated planning, management and execution of a program. We define a "program" as multiple related projects that are directed toward the same strategic, business or organizational objectives that, when executed together, generate benefits beyond those that would have been generated had they been executed individually (see Table 1). Most major program initiatives extend across

functional and business-unit lines, which means that program managers need expertise in a broad number of areas. Also, a full suite of "soft skills" come into play as stakeholders are brought to consensus. A wide set of resources is brought to bear on the program, and risks and changes at all levels are assessed, decided on and communicated. Specific functions include: • Comprehensive program planning • Coordination of project delivery • Change and risk management • Active and open communications with various groups • Measurement of program results Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 5 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

• Business-IT collaboration (especially important for decisions that affect business architecture and processes) Once their programs are complete, many of our clients have moved their program managers over to lead their efforts in organizing and building a project management capability in the organization.

2.3 PMO Leader PPM leaders (and project managers as well) often report into a specific group, labeled "PMO," that has as its charter some subset of project, program and portfolio activities. There are many existing organizational constructs and varieties of charter for the PMO, some of which we will explore later. The main responsibilities of a PMO leader are generally built on one of the roles we have already described. It is extended by the custodianship for the organizational unit. The PMO leader will generally have these functions: • Team leader or "people management" responsibility for other PPM resources • Skill development and training • Responsibility for selecting and implementing PPM tools and related technologies • Design and evolution of PMO methodologies and standards • Quality audit of projects and programs • Centralized reporting and knowledge management Job titles for the roles described in this section will vary greatly by organization. These roles straddle organizational, business function and competency boundaries, so they can effectively "live" in any of the associated organizational units as long as the role is clearly defined. These roles are generally at the vice president or director level, and report to the CIO or a senior executive within IT, operations or other business units.

2.4 Portfolio Manager Very few organizations start with project portfolio management as their first foray into organizing their PPM environment anymore. The rise of project management as a professional discipline, and the belief by many that project portfolio management requires having good project management in place as an enabler, has shifted the focus from making the right investments to executing on whichever investments have been chosen. After a large number of conversations with clients, it's probably safe to say that this is a bit of a "chicken and egg" discussion. The right answer is that, as rapidly as possible, an organization should be focused on building both capabilities.

The project portfolio manager is responsible for the analysis, governance and tools used to plan, create, assess and balance the candidate projects/programs in the portfolio. The portfolio manager is also responsible for communicating the priorities of the finalized portfolio and providing status information on ongoing investments, such that the portfolio can be continuously maintained and reprioritized as new projects are proposed, and as older projects are completed or terminated. The portfolio is more than a list of projects. Projects must be prioritized based on a set of agreedon criteria for value to the business — considered within the context of internal and external constraints — and weighted by risk. The portfolio manager's activities are ongoing, because the Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 6 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

variables that affect decisions about the contents of the portfolio need to be continuously monitored and communicated. Specific functions include: • Overall investment, benefit and risk optimization • Active portfolio performance monitoring • Business environment change adaptation • Information exchange and linkage to associated operational portfolios (asset, application and so on)

2.5 Resource Manager The role of a resource manager in the context of PPM is becoming more and more important. The resource manager is responsible for matching the resource capacity of the organization to the resource demand that has been generated by approved projects and programs. While many organizations focus first on fulfillment activities (the resource manager assigns the appropriate staff to project "A" once it's approved), we've found that it's much more efficient to limit the number of projects in flight at any one time to those for which appropriate staffing is available. This latter situation means that the portfolio manager needs to work with a resource manager to understand whether it makes sense for project "A" to start or to wait three more weeks until staff becomes available. At its broadest, resource management embraces external scanning, business sensing, business and technology strategies, relationship management, skill management, knowledge management, reassignment, career paths, recruitment, external sourcing, and learning programs. Specific functions include: • Organizational intelligence to map ventures and projects on the demand side and to people, assignments and external sources on the supply side • Coordination of opportunities as projects accelerate and people seek new assignments and learning • Detection and mitigation of knowledge gaps and bottlenecks

2.6 PMO Support Staff The right amount of support staff for a PMO obviously depends on the size of the organization and the breadth of its charter. In "The Gartner Universe for PPM Roles," we discuss the variety of roles often found associated within a PMO. In this overview, we'll just be focusing on the extra

pair of hands we believe that PMOs will generally need sooner rather than later.

2.6.1 PMO Administrator

As much as we'd like to claim to the contrary, project management software tools don't run themselves. While some of the software-as-a-service tools have the lowest overhead (because they lend themselves toward using "out of the box"), the more sophisticated and configurable the tool, the more it will entail having at least one or more individuals as system administrators. Having spoken with multiple clients who have opted to use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Access databases instead of any of the more-robust tools on the market, it would appear that, once an organization makes the decision to track anything about their projects, hiring a project administrator becomes a necessity. Specific functions often include: Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 7 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

• Maintain PPM software tool as required • Oversee project and program initiation and close-out processes in the system of record • Provide quality assurance (QA) for the project reporting dashboard

2.6.2 Project Support Analyst The exact title of this job obviously changes according to the needs of the organization doing the hiring, but the model of one person focused on the system/information, one person focused on supporting the needs of the project manager, and one person focused on the needs of stakeholders, sponsors and other support groups (as well as strategy and planning) has proven its effectiveness in our experience. Many organizations begin by focusing their first additional support staff on the development of methodology. Our advice is, instead, to focus them on QA and project support with a strong bent toward effective risk management, not process compliance. Keeping a project on track and delivering value pays for itself every time (which is how we recommend justifying this head count). Specific functions often include: • Review of business cases for proposed projects • Review of project management plans for projects • Conducting project health checks as appropriate • Risk management reviews • Facilitation of visioning sessions and collaborative requirements sessions • Review of project estimates and financial forecasts

3.0 The PPM Organization Structure PPM leaders are specialists with particular competencies. Organizationally, they exist wherever these competencies are a management focus and the associated disciplines are implemented through defined processes. There is no "one size fits all" structure. Program and portfolio managers can also report into a standards and methodology group or portfolio function reporting to the CIO, the CFO or another executive. In other cases, these leaders exercise their competency within a functional group, such as application management or operations, with "dotted lines" to others of similar function or to a centralized PMO. Many

organizations have multiple groups of this type whose scope may vary by the part of the organization they serve, the investment budget they target, the size of the initiatives they support or the subset of activities they specifically perform. There is a great deal of confusion between a program management office, a project management office and a program office. For the sake of clarity, we define a group that manages a single strategic program as a program office. We define a project management office as a management construct that provides a mix of services to projects and programs ranging from oversight and auditing to methods and tool support. For the sake of clarity (more so than for any other reason), we prefer to leave the term "program management office" to those organizations that are so large that they have multiple in-flight programs of interest to executive management. Additionally, there is generally (but not always) an enterprise designator in front of what we would consider a program management office. Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 8 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

3.1 The PMO — The Project/Program/Portfolio Management Office It is very common for organizations to focus these competencies by setting up a PMO. The most general definition of a PMO is a center of expertise that provides organizational focus on improving the management of projects, programs and portfolios. In large enterprises, different styles of PMOs may be established at departmental or divisional levels, reporting to an enterprise PMO with an oversight role, but no direct project or program management responsibilities.

3.2 Project/Program Office A program or a large project requires a dedicated team, rather than a single person to provide appropriate oversight and day-to-day management. This team of people is generally referred to as the "program/project office. In cases where the program office is the first formal structure an organization builds, it is our strong recommendation that organizations not try to add broad-brush PMO responsibilities prematurely. A program office needs to be in place to manage and successfully deliver the program. When the program is completed, the same group of people is often the natural group to evolve into a more-classic PMO and it is at that point that more general functions (like methodology deployment and training) can be added to the charter.

3.3 Project Portfolio Office Where the major focus is project portfolio management, some different organizational constructs occur. A focus on project portfolio management is tied closely to senior-level governance structures. Alignment and prioritization to business objectives and executive decision making are required to enable effective prioritization and benefits realization. To that end, these groups are often separate from a project/program management-oriented PMO. In fact, trying to blend the two will generally not be effective for either side (see Table 2).

Table 2. The Project/Program/Portfolio Management Office

Title Description Project Management Office A project management office is usually created to solve a specific problem: Generally, the IT organization's inability to deliver IT projects on time, on budget and in scope. Project managers may "live" in the PMO or in different IT units, such as application development, or in the business. All PMOs must start at the initial stage, project management, before they can evolve to the program management and then the portfolio management stages. The scope of work changes from tactical to strategic, while the scope of initiatives broadens from IT-intensive projects to enterprisewide business and IT initiatives. Once the PMO has earned credibility with the business, it usually receives requests to help manage business projects. At this point, it needs to evolve to the next stage. Program Office A program management office manages programs as well as projects. A program is a group of related business and IT projects that supports a common goal. The PMO focus shifts to the more-complex management of programs, which are larger, take longer, require more business-IT collaboration and involve a more diverse set of stakeholders. Project Portfolio Office Evolving to a portfolio management office starts when senior executives question whether the enterprise is making the right investments and getting the best returns. The portfolio management office provides the information, analysis and oversight to answer these questions enterprisewide. Source: Gartner (April 2009) Publication Date: 17 April 2009/ID Number: G00166922 Page 9 of 9 © 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

RECOMMENDED READING

"The Gartner Universe for PPM Roles" "Who's Who in Portfolio Management: An Overview of Roles" "Who's Who in Program Management: An Overview of Roles" "Who's Who in Project Management and the PMO: An Overview of Roles" "Toolkit Sample Template: Program and Portfolio Management Job Descriptions" "PMO Best Practices: Focus on People at Early Maturity Levels" "Toolkit Sample Template: PPM Role Assessment (Aligning What You Do to Where You Fit)"

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS Corporate Headquarters 56 Top Gallant Road Stamford, CT 06902-7700 U.S.A. +1 203 964 0096 European Headquarters Tamesis The Glanty Egham Surrey, TW20 9AW UNITED KINGDOM +44 1784 431611 Asia/Pacific Headquarters Gartner Australasia Pty. Ltd. Level 9, 141 Walker Street North Sydney New South Wales 2060 AUSTRALIA +61 2 9459 4600 Japan Headquarters Gartner Japan Ltd. Aobadai Hills, 6F 7-7, Aobadai, 4-chome Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042 JAPAN +81 3 3481 3670 Latin America Headquarters Gartner do Brazil Av. das Nações Unidas, 12551 9° andar—World Trade Center

04578-903—São Paulo SP BRAZIL +55 11 3443 1509

The Ten Management Roles of a Manager identified by Mintzberg Role Description Identifiable activities |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | INTERPERSONAL | | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Figurehead | Symbolic head; obliged | Ceremony, status, | | | to perform a number of | requests, solicitations | | | routine duties of a | | | | legal or social nature | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Leader | Responsible for the | Managerial activities | | | motivation and | involving subordinates | | | activation of | | | | subordinates; staffing, | | | | training, and associated| | | | duties. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Liaison activities | Maintains self-developed| Acknowledgement of mail,| | | network of outside | external board work, | | | contacts and public | other contacts involving| | | relations to maintain | outsiders | | | flow of information. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | INFORMATIONAL | | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Monitor | Seeks and receives a | Handling all mail and | | | wide variety of | contacts; categorized as| | | information (much of it | concerned primarily with| | | current) to develop a | receiving information ( | | | thorough understanding | e.g. – periodical news, | | | of the organization and | observational tours) | | | environment; emerges as | | | | the nerve center of the | | | | organization’s internal | | | | and external | | | | information. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Disseminator | Transmits information | Forwarding mail to the | | | received from outsiders | organization for | | | or from subordinates to | informational purposes, | | | members of the | verbal contacts | | | organization; some | involving information | | | information is factual, | flow to subordinates | | | some involve | (e.g. review sessions | | | interpretation and | instant communication | | | integration. | flows) | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Spokesperson | Transmits information to| Board meetings, handling| | | outsiders on the | mail and contacts | | | organisation’s plans, | involving transmission | | | policies, actions, | of information to |

| | results and so forth; | outsiders | | | serves as an expert on | | | | the organisation’s | | | | industry. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | DECISIONAL | | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Entrepreneur | Searches the | Strategy and review | | | organization and its | sessions involving | | | environment for | initiation or design of | | | opportunities and | improvement projects | | | initiates ‘improvement | | | | projects’ to bring about| | | | change; supervises | | | | design of certain | | | | projects as well. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Disturbance Handler | Responsible for | Strategy and review | | | corrective action when | involving disturbance | | | the organization faces | and crises | | | important, unexpected | | | | disturbances. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Resource Allocation | Responsible for the | Strategy and review | | | allocation of | involving authorization,| | | organizational resources| any activity involving | | | of all kinds, in effect,| budgeting and the | | | the making or approving | programming of | | | of all significant | subordinates work | | | organizational | | | | decisions. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------| | Negotiator | Responsible for | Negotiation | | | representing the | | | | organization at major | | | | negotiations. | | |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------|

Today's managers must be supportive facilitators. They still need to be directive and decisive but they can no longer use an autocratic management style.

The role of manager has evolved a great deal over the past 30 years but it varies considerably across industries. One constant, however, is that managers are employees held accountable by their superiors to make sure they deliver in line with expectations. Managers in turn need to make sure that people reporting to them also deliver. This requirement places managers in a controlling, decision making position. The big change for managers today is HOW they carry out their responsibilities in managing people.

Factors Driving Changes to Management Style

There are two major factors that have influenced how managers need to behave. The most important change is that the nature of work has gradually evolved from manual labor to knowledge work. Workers have become much better educated and they do not respond well to being ordered around. They want to have a say in how their work is done and they want to have their views respected. Also, the workers often know more about what to do than their managers. Increasing specialization and technological advancement has made it impossible for managers to be as knowledgeable as the people reporting to them. This has had a dramatic impact on the way managers must manage people. Instead of telling employees what to do, they know need to ASK them what they think should be done. Now, managers need to be facilitators as much as decision makers. Of course this change is still underway and it is gradual because there are still industries that are not so highly knowledge driven. The second major change that has affected management style is the splitting of the basic management purpose into two sub-goals. The original one was simply to get things done efficiently. The new one is to foster innovation to create a viable future for the business. When the focus was solely on getting things done, the manager could tell employees what to do. But you can’t tell people to be creative. They must be stimulated to think creatively and supported in these efforts. This requirement again forces managers to be more facilitative than controlling and directive. A crucial secondary consideration that is really a corollary of the first two is the fact that employees with highly developed specialist skills are more mobile than other kinds of workers and no organization can afford to annoy them excessively. Otherwise they will lose them. The overall result of these changes has been a profound shift in the balance of power from manager to employee. Again, these changes have not been uniform because only some industries are highly knowledge based and need regular innovation to survive. For example, a car rental firm doesn’t need many highly specialized knowledge workers or as much innovation as a consumer electronics or software developer. Inescapable Management Accountability

Managers today are almost like sports managers where the sports star is the hero while the manager is in a support staff role. However, they cannot move totally in this direction because, unlike in sports, business managers do not work for the person they manage. They work for their superiors who pay their salaries and, ultimately, for the owners of the business, be they individuals or shareholders. As a result, they cannot cater to the whims of employees beyond a reasonable degree. They cannot let them do what they want totally, even if a degree of freedom is conducive to empowerment and the creative thinking necessary for innovation. Results must be delivered and managers cannot afford to be patient for long because their job is on the line. Even self-managing teams must report to someone, if only a customer. In most cases, customers or owners want to hold one person accountable. This means that at least one person in a self-managing team must be charged with making sure that expectations are met.

Read more: file:///C:/Documents%20and %20Settings/Moni/Dokumentumok/Downloads/the_managers_role_in_modern_bus iness.htm#ixzz0W211evUY

2003 Excellence in Practice Award

Electronic Learning Technologies Organizational Learning Workplace Learning & Development

IBM

Hillsboro, North Carolina

Role of the Manager SUMMARY

Problem #1: An ambitious business strategy of eBusiness On Demand requires business leadership transformation. Problem #2: Leadership across multiple lines of business is critical. Managing a matrixed organization, collaborating across functional and national boundaries, teaming in electronic spaces -- are new challenges. Problem #3: Managers are time pressed. How to create and deliver comprehensive enterprise learning solution that transforms the business on all levels - individual, team and organizational learning that on a massive scale. Objectives: Design and deploy a learning experience that: ⌧ uses the learning process to address business-unit priorities and define action plans ⌧ creates new e-approaches to align teams on key business objectives ⌧ targets managers’ individual development needs in leading performance through people ⌧ provides a learning/communications initiative to support peer learning and shared objectives Twofold solution: #1: Create a learning process of “core” people-leadership skills, with specialized skills for specific business-unit actions Customized business unit curriculums to drive business results aligned with company strategy. Management teams create shared goals to achieve business objectives through performance of people. Each manager has their own customized learning path, informed by 360-degree survey data and individual career goals, plus business-unit objectives. This requires new technology to diagnose, prescribe, and track individual, team and unit needs, strengths, weaknesses, and goals. #2: Employ blended, multi-modality approach, integrating intranet collaboration and e-learning with classroom. Incorporating: ⌧ customized individual learning paths ⌧ dialogues among managers and executives to align and refocus manager’s role ⌧ online performance-support modules and e-simulations ⌧ virtual collaborative workspaces to drive change ⌧ a rigorous assessment/evaluation framework

BACKGROUND

The Challenge and Purpose. The global, technology-enhanced market place is transforming the manager’s role requiring more skills: accommodating an everchanging

matrix environment of shared leadership and report-to roles; leading teams increasingly remote and mobile; creating an environment that encourages continual innovation vis a vis rapid market changes, and more. Needing a wide range of leadership skills, managers can easily lose their primary focus: leading high performance through people. This initiative sharpens that focus. Also, in our increasingly remote-and-mobile environment, managers need to remain connected with peer managers within their business unit, to share solutions, to build networks, and to help define and achieve actions that create business results. This initiative provides new tools and activities that use learning to drive collaboration, manager development, and business strategy and actions. Our managers work 10-12 hours/day, some longer. The option to increase our 2-day offsite class time for skill-building and networking was unfeasible. We needed a new approach to create dialogue, collaboration, individual development, and action plans. Proposed Solution and Goal. Our proposal: reconceptualizes management development as a transformational and extended process, rather than a several-day classroom “event”; invents and employs new technologies that support the classroom intervention, create authentic dialogue among peer managers and executives, and enable collaboration on defining and achieving focused, strategic actions within business units. Implementation. This initiative has been delivered to 16,836 executives, managers and leaders worldwide. These leaders comprise 57.6% of the total worldwide management population, a sufficient number to assess results for continued planned roll out to all remaining management teams over the next 3 quarters. Resources committed. Professionals (27 FTE facilitators, learning consultants, and adjuncts over 2 years): $8100K Administration (10 FTE over 2 years) $975K; 6 FTE Developers (Needs, Content; Edvisor): $1708K; ManagerActionNet (6 FTE over 1.5 years) $1177K; 2 FTE Managers, 2 yrs: $697K Vendor for Manager ActionNet: $1075K; Vendor for ManagerJam: $175; Vendor for Learning Technology: $724K; Vendor, Program Materials: $480K; Vendor, Prog. Development.: $780K Facilitator Training $930K. TOTAL INVESTMENT: $16,821,000 What sets the practice apart? The design creates new learning tools/processes that: (1) connect different levels of management for learning dialogues in ways not available previously; (2) provide a venue for a continuing and sustaining focus on the key action role of the manager; (3) facilitate completion and reporting of team action plans derived from the Learning Lab; (4) facilitate a customizable and trackable long-term learning process tailored to individual skill development from each learner’s 360-survey data and individual interviews. Phase I: ManagerJam: Enterprise-wide manager conversation hosted by our CEO, was a massive company-wide online dialogue, for all 30,000

managers worldwide held on July 9 -11, 2002, participation was extremely high. Company managers, worldwide, dialogued on 6 key management issues, chosen via interviews w/70 executives from across our businesses, that focused on the company’s most critical management topics. Objectives of ManagerJam were to: (1) Begin nonhierarchical dialogue among managers; (2) Improve manager behavior change in collaboration, networking, and open sharing of ideas; (3) Build a sense of community among managers, based on common management issues; (4) Encourage managers to think differently about solving company-wide management issues; (5) Build a knowledge library based on manager insights It was the largest conversation on management topics in our company’s history: over 7,002,000 total "page reads" and 4,554 responses within the 6 discussion forums: Our managers’ solutions, ideas, and success stories rated by participating peers as having most potential -- are permanently available to the global management team on our KM Web site for manager support. Phase II: Edvisor and e-learning. We created a patent-pending online tool -Edvisor -- to create a guided path for each of our managers, including those working “remote and mobile.” Edvisor prepares the manager for the Role of the Manager Learning Lab. Edvisor helps move learning from a classroom event to a continuous, individual process. Edvisor: ⌧ provides a blend of e-learning (online performance support, online simulations, virtual collaboration) to enhance the Learning Lab classroom experience ⌧ provides a personally-customized career-learning path for each individual manager ⌧ is customized by business-unit and individual manager survey-data reports ⌧ meets managers’ immediate problem-solving needs and long-term developmental goals ⌧ makes learning accessible whenever desired and wherever convenient for managers ⌧ is directly aligned to support achievement of business goals. Phase III: The 2-day, in-class “Learning Lab” focuses on experiential, higher-order learning for management teams to create shared action plans. Comprises: (1) A day of action learning, customized to each management team, to strengthen specific peoplemanagement skills from issues derived from their own business goals. Executive sponsors select the action-learning topics for their managment teams. Devotes attention to the manager’s individual survey feedback of their leadership competencies, their managerial styles and the climate they create in the organization, all data generated from 360-degree questionnaires from the manager’s direct reports, colleagues, and manager. (2) A day of action planning, defining the implications of a specific business’s priorities for that business unit’s managers. The team proposes concrete business-related actions, records discussion and commitments. Focus is on taking the imperatives

identified at corporate and business-unit levels, and elaborating them for action for the intact work group. Phase IV: Manager ActionNet -- a new, patent-pending, web based community of purpose across an entire organization where managers discuss and take action on their key management challenges. Enables focused, organization-wide discussion, work and knowledge sharing. Provides a structured process after the Learning Lab for all members of that management team to continue to learn, share best solutions and execute the plans that drive success on their business priorities. It accelerates organizational change through broader communication and participation among managers and executives within their business unit, and enables assessment of actions taken for the issue. Key topics are “spotlighted” by Business Unit executives and “tagged” for wider use and potential adoption throughout the organization. Any manager can contribute to best ideas and shared knowledge from any business unit in the company.

DOCUMENTATION

Needs Identification 1. Describe the problem or need for which this practice is designed and implemented. How was this problem identified, and how was it determined that this practice is an appropriate response? 1. Given our company’s large size (300,000+ employees), our needs analysis and determination of appropriate solutions are generated from a variety of sources: ⌧ Managers -- ongoing qualitative interviews with managers provide day-to-day perspective of what actual line-customers need ⌧ Executive Interviews -- execs across all business units and geographies, 147 line executives were asked for business goals, implications for managers, obstacles and linkages needed to drive business success. ⌧ Global Learning Leaders -- 7 senior executives, representing all geographies and all industries within our company, raise specific business-related and geographyrelated issues to be solved via a global approach ⌧ Business Unit Business Plans -- strategic business plans from every major division were examined for short- and long-term needs for behavior change ⌧ HR Solutions Focus Team surveys employees, divisions, and employee-relation officers for management problems and concerns ⌧ Our department enjoys founding-membership status in the Harvard Business School Publishing New Media Partners Council. This consortium comprises 20 noncompeting Fortune 500 companies identifying overall trends in industry that impact management development ⌧ Internal development specialists communicate insights, thoughts, and trends from academic conferences and colloquia (e.g., the Conference Board, ASTD’s and Online

Learning’s annual conferences, committees and expositions, etc.). ⌧ Internal research was commissioned to study leadership competencies that drive success from our 360-degree management assessment surveys, resulting in new, corporate-wide definitions of competencies, behaviors that lead to employee motivation, ability to execute on business goals, and retention, as well as establishing new standards for ongoing personal development. ⌧ Internal leadership experts in management, leadership, organizational development, strategy, knowledge management, team effectiveness, large-scale communications, learning and human resource excellence served to design overall strategy and elements of the initiative ⌧ Management System Data Sources -- important corporate measurements (quantitative and qualitative) of management quality offered insights from employees, managers and executives; such as global employee surveys, specialized work group surveys (e.g., work/life and communications) and exit interviews, including the results from 51,400 360-degree management assessment surveys. ⌧ External Research. Key studies from academic and corporate sources were culled for relevant insights into leader behavior change. For example, Prof. Michael Tushman (Harvard Business School) provided insights on culture and effectiveness after his leading our company executives in organizational development sessions ⌧ Mayflower Survey. Our organization is provided a comparative analysis of our management standing vis a vis 20 companies within our industry in regard to: retention statistics, employee attitude, hiring, employee relations, trends & issues, benchmarking practices & policies ⌧ Global Employee Survey. Each year our company randomly surveys 1/3 of our entire employee population. The questionnaire typically includes 24 questions on perception of the manager and company management to identify specific management education needs. Distilling the reports of above-mentioned sources identified a significant growing need to focus on people-management skills, in particular ⌧ Motivating employees to high performance ⌧ Retaining our high-performing employees ⌧ Enabling employees to execute to achieve high performance Further, each business unit held executive sessions to establish customized, targeted managerial imperatives based on business goals. These provide the platform for deployment of the initiative and ensure alignment with business goals, and most importantly, executive commitment to their key organizational change roles. Design Values 2. Please describe how this practice takes into account the best interests of both the organization and the employees targeted. Organizational Interests. Design efforts were guided by three organizational objectives: (1) to develop superior people-management skills in all our managers; (2) to harness the potential of an e-business approach to learning and dialogue; (3) to provide a

purposeful collaborative and individualized learning opportunity that defines and enables business-unit action towards achieving their objective. Ability to lead high performance through people has been found to foster a highperformance working environment that increases business results. An e-business approach to learning, communicating, and collaborating allows us to reach students globally to strengthen these skills, and to put into our own practice our company’s “ebusiness” approach to using network technologies to reach our “customers” distributed around the world. Finally, the learning focuses on defining and producing action within business units to improve business results. These objectives were endorsed and supported at senior levels of the company, and provides the model for the Role of the Manager. Employee Needs. Our managers are pressed for time. Enhancing leadership and management skills in a time-efficient way is of critical importance to managers. Moreover, being able to fulfill managers’ individual performance-support needs in a “just-in-time” manner is equally compelling. The task was to create an instructional model that employs our network infrastructure to allow managers to make best use of resources, both collaborative and online, to fulfill their organizational-unit’s learning needs and the skill-building needs of our individual managers. The “Blended” Design. Our design blends 4 “tiers” of delivery in the tradition of a learning hierarchy. Each tier builds upon learning developed at the previous tier, beginning with information transfer and progressing on to skills development and collaborative person-to-person interaction. The tiers together comprise a system of tools and applications that constitute a continuing process of learning, instead of “events” such as one-time classes or workshops. Tier 1. Online information transfer / performance support. Online resources are available to the manager via the company intranet anytime, anywhere, before, during, and after the 2-day Role of the Manager Learning Lab. The primary purpose is to prepare managers for their Learning Lab. Best thinking on 150+ leadership and peoplemanagement topics of concern to our managers are available, including customized materials from Harvard Business School Publishing. Printable worksheets and checklists for specific action issues and links to important external Web sites are highlighted. As we team globally, managers need access to policies and practices in different countries. Tier 1 allows managers fast access to all global HR material. Tier 2. Interactive online skill building / simulations. Managers enhance their knowledge and skill development by engaging in immersive simulations of issues presented in Tier 1. The online Coaching Simulator comprises 8 different scenarios with over 5000 screens of actions, decisions points, and branching results. More than 30 other simulations and QuickCases cover other people-management skills: Motivating Employees, Retaining Employees, Enabling Employee High Performance, Creating an Environment for Innovation, Team Leadership, Multicultural Issues, Work-Life Issues, and Employee Business Commitments. Tier-3. Online collaboration. ManagerJam and Manager ActionNet call managers to

participate in organizational groupware spaces to discuss and solve critical leadership issues with peer managers and their executive teams. Collaborative spaces using same-place, different-time communication enable a global learning environment, eliminating problems of time zones and travel, and creating networks that live beyond the Role of the Manager initiative. Tier 4. Face-to-face, classroom “Learning Lab.” Face-to-face human interaction is arguably the most powerful of learning interventions for developing manager skills. Workshops of management teams create and commit to shared learning action plans to drive change. The 2-day in-class experience requires the learner to master the material contained in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 so that the precious time spent in Learning Labs can target deeper and richer skills development. The 4 tiers -- online information, online skills practice; online collaboration; and facetoface action learning and skill building -- are delivered over 4 phases, described in section H, above. Alignment 3. How is this practice in alignment with the performance problem identified, as described in your answer to question #1. The blended learning process, employing 4 tiers of learning: ⌧ Allows managers to access material when and where they need it, not have to leave customer sites or work sites ⌧ Allows managers access to far more learning than delivered in a classroom-only approach. ⌧ Enables managers to work at their own pace and at their own convenience to build a foundation of knowledge (Tier 1) that prepares them for the face-to-face learning experience. ⌧ Maximizes the precious limited time spent face-to-face in the classroom experience. ⌧ Provides more opportunity for specific business-unit critical skills to be addressed across all geographies and units. ⌧ Provides a set of permanent, updatable resource tools for the manager’s future use to access to solve workday problems whenever they need them. ⌧ Provides opportunities to collaborate across time zones and geographies to share best practices and solution ideas, and provides a permanent database of those discussions. Also, our HR/Learning/Communications teams work with each business-unit executive to: ⌧ Incorporate the business priorities of that business into the Role of the Manager program ⌧ Customize the content for managers in specific ways to fit the developmental needs of the managers in that business (based on business-unit strategic plans, executive interview, company research, and manager survey results) ⌧ Ensure that the action planning and action learning are conducted with a focus on

how to drive performance for that specific business through the people in that business ⌧ Enable the executives in each business to take ownership for the initiative and integrate it with other efforts for supporting, recognizing and communicating with managers ⌧ Deploy the program in ways that bring managers from the same business/geography together, to address common challenges and opportunities 4. Describe how this practice integrates other training, learning, and performance improvement practices, and aligns with organizational goals to achieve desired outcomes. Blending a variety of learning modalities (online collaboration and knowledge sharing, interactive e-simulations, in-class role-plays and interactive activities, online Action Nets) is an integration of different learning opportunities combining to reinforce leadership and people management skills. Basic knowledge gain in peoplemanagement is first accessed via online opportunities (ManagerJam, Manager QuickViews, HarvardManageMentor, Simulators, etc.). Managers then deepen their skill building in face-to-face Learning Lab role plays and business-unit action planning, followed by ongoing Manager ActionNets that support and refine the action plans on an organizational level, and long-term individual manager learning Plans. All these focus on both managers strengthening their people-management skills and the organization making changes to encourage and enable those managers success and business process to build high performance via their people. A critical organizational goal is for managers to become adept at using our ebusiness approach to learning, internal technologies for communication (Lotus Notes) and collaboration (Lotus TeamRoom, Lotus WorkRoom, Lotus CustomerRoom). In fact, all our online materials -- QuickViews, QuickCases, Simulators, Edvisor, ManagerJam, Manager ActionNet -- were designed using the Lotus interface to solidify alignment with our everyday communication tools. 5. What evidence is there of partnerships within and outside the organization (e.g., with senior management, front-line supervisors, unions, external training suppliers consortia)? All instructional materials comprising the Role of the Manager intervention have been designed and developed in concert with other organizations, within and outside the company. For example, the online Coaching Simulator was co-designed with our Executive Development division; the simulator contains 4 manager scenarios, and 4 executive scenarios. Both groups together bench marked the coaching field and, for the purpose of alignment up and down the company, agreed to adopt the same coaching model. The Role of the Manager Simulator was developed with cooperation of Harvard Business School Publishing (HBSP). For the first time in its history, HBSP permitted a

client to customize its flagship product, Harvard Business Review articles. Our company revised the HBR articles for our audience, re-purposing 7 selected HBR articles to serve as the instructional content for the Role of the Manager online simulator. We licensed an HBSP book (Winning Through Innovation) for use in our Learning Lab, and it forms the basis of the in-class case study. The Manager QuickViews were co-developed by HBSP and us. As HBSP was building its Harvard ManageMentor and we were building our Manager QuickViews, we mutually shared our design ideas, feedback from users, and interface insights. Thus the two tools work in similar fashion, and the HBSP content fits perfectly within our interface, allowing us the advantage of easily adding HBSP content appropriate to our needs.. Our company’s Focus Team, charged with identifying critical line issues, was accorded the role of decision maker on what QuickView topics would be written and incorporated, in order to align these performance-support tools with real business issues and concerns of managers. Our Multicultural QuickView and Web site was co-designed with the Intercultural Business Institute of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. The cross-cultural model and all 300 interactive cross-cultural scenarios were co-developed with the director of the Institute. Other QuickViews are written by subject-matter experts from across the HR and Policy functions. We participate in professional endeavors to share knowledge with thought leaders in the field, cosponsoring benchmarking studies on e-learning with Dr. Brandon Hall and professional associations. Evaluation Strategy 6. How is this practice evaluated? What factors are included in your calculations? (e.g. time, costs, staff count, lost phone calls, customer satisfaction)? Are the financial costs of this practice calculated? If so, how? How often is this practice evaluated? Before program deployment, to ensure objectivity an outside intervention-analysis firm was hired to define and implement an independent 3rd-party evaluation of the program’s effectiveness and business impact. This firm conducted a 2-phase evaluation strategy over 9 months. Data were collected from various samples by class observation, by surveys conducted immediately after the Learning Lab, after 45 and 90 days (through Manager ActionNet and email), and by participant interviews. During both phases, various procedures were used to collect data at 4 levels: Level 1 – Participants’ perceived value of the program Level 2 – Participants’ self-assessment of how well they achieved the learning objectives Level 3 – Actions taken by participants to implement action plans defined in the Learning Lab portion of the program, as well as barriers to implementation in the work environment

Level 4 – Business impact of actions taken during implementation of action plans Evaluation Activities In the first phase (4Q2002), all participants were asked after the Learning Lab for initial reactions and perceptions of the program’s learning value. Samples of participants in follow-up interviews described the business actions taken as a result of the program and actual and expected impact of those actions. In the second phase (1Q, 2Q, 2003), all participants were asked after the Learning Lab for reactions and perceptions of the learning value of the program. Also, Imperative Leaders were surveyed -- both 45 and 90 days after attending the Learning Lab -- on their team’s progress toward implementation of the action plans defined in the Learning Lab and on any work-environment barriers to implementation of those action plans. Imperative leaders who reported progress toward implementation of their action plans were invited to participate in a telephone interview, in which they described their team’s action plan and the business impact of actions taken. More specifically, they quantified the impact of action plans on operational and financial metrics in their organization. A total 174 such interviews were conducted with imperative leaders, Nov. 2002 -- June 2003. During Phase Two of the evaluation (1Q, 2Q, 2003), Level 3 data were collected in two surveys: Survey via Manager ActionNet. At two intervals (45 and 90 days after attending the Learning Lab), Imperative Leaders were surveyed through Manager ActionNet on 3 questions: ⌧ Have you made significant progress in implementing your action plans? If yes... ⌧ Are you observing an impact on operational and business measures? What is the degree of change? ⌧ If no, what are the factors preventing you from taking action? Survey via Email. Those imperative leaders who did not respond to the 45- and 90day surveys through Manager ActionNet were contacted through email and asked the same 3 questions. Interviews. To collect additional data, interviews were conducted with two samples of participants — a random sample of participants during Phase One, and during Phase Two a sample of leaders of team action plans (i.e., Imperative Leaders). These individuals were identified during the Learning Lab portion of the program. Participants were asked to rate their perception of the relevance and applicability of the program to their jobs using a 5-point scale. Several months after completing the Learning Lab, 77% of the participants in the random sample and 70% of the imperative leaders rated the program as 1 or 2 (1 = highly relevant and applicable). Eighty percent (80%) of the participants in the random sample and in the imperative leader sample (85%) also

perceived it to be a valuable learning experience. Collection of 50 Randomly Selected Business Cases. The intervention-analysis firm collected 50 business-impact cases from program teams across every participating geography and business unit to assess if the implementation of action plans developed within the program has led participants to achieve business results. Results 7. What specific participant behaviors are observed as a result of this practice, and how do these behaviors contribute to the goals of the practice? Are the impacts of these behaviors short-term or long-term? How do these behaviors differ from the results of previous practices? 8. What was the impact of the practice on your organization? Are the impacts of these behaviors short-term or long-term? Imperative Leaders who reported progress toward implementing their team’s action plan were invited to participate in a telephone interview to describe their action plan, the business impact of actions taken, and to quantify the impact of their action plan on the operational and financial metrics in their organization. A total of 174 interviews were conducted between November 2002 and June 2003. Participants reported a range of specific knowledge and behavior change as a result of the practice: • Improved communication among extended team members • Increased employee motivation, engagement, and morale • Achievement of company’s strategic objectives (e.g., selling solutions rather than components; emphasis on service on demand) • Increased product and solution knowledge • Increased awareness of business issues by employees • Increased collaboration among brands • Improved productivity • Operational efficiencies • Shortened selling cycle • Reduced administrative work and red-tape • Increased customer satisfaction Financial Impact. The 50 individual cases were described and detailed, and demonstrated the business impact achieved by participants who implemented their team action plans. Significant revenue enhancement resulted from implementation of the action plans in some of these cases: - Implementation of the action plans in 3 cases alone in 4Q02 generated estimated revenue of over $100 million. - Implementation of action plans in 9 cases in 2Q03 generated estimated revenue of over $184M. Imperative Leaders in both sets of cases, above, credit the program as the single catalyst in enabling them to achieve these results. The estimated total cost of development and deployment of the program is $80M. These selected cases alone show that the program has already acted as a catalyst to produce a net return of more than $200M. Estimates are based on a sample of imperative leaders who agreed to participate in data collection and reporting; cumulative financial return of the program may well be higher.

Results of evaluation data collected over the past 3 quarters indicate a majority of participants believe the program is relevant to their jobs and assess it a valuable learning experience. It is important to ensure that action plans defined during learning labs are implemented, given the significant business impact experienced by teams that have implemented their action plans. The barriers to action-plan implementation provide a starting point for program improvement and follow on interventions. Findings Levels 1 & 2: Perceived Value & Learning Surveys conducted with all participants immediately after the Learning Lab show that over 90% of participants indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied (on a 5point scale) with the program. This rating of overall satisfaction with the program has been above the 80% benchmark in all business groups worldwide since its early deployment. In follow-up interviews conducted with participants several months after attending the Learning Lab, a majority of the participants (over 80%) perceived the program to be a valuable learning experience. When asked whether investment in it should continue given the cost constraints the company faces, over 80% of the participants believed that the program should continue. Level 3: Actions Taken Nearly all participants (97%) indicated in the post-Learning Lab survey that they intended to take action based on their participation in the program. Follow-up surveys conducted several months later, however, show 60% of participants are taking action. A number of factors contribute to this drop. They range from problems with the action plans themselves (too ambitious, too little focus on high-priority problems), to lack of support from others (lack of executive support and sponsorship, too little cooperation from others), from insufficient motivation (non-supportive metrics, inappropriate structure for measurement and reward, little accountability for implementation of a plan) to simple lack of resources or discipline. Level 4: Business Impact Program participants who have implemented their team action plans have seen a wide range of actual and expected impact. Immediate benefits include improved communication among extended team members and increased employee motivation, engagement, and morale. Implementation of some action plans has resulted in increased collaboration among brands, operational efficiencies, improved productivity, reduced administrative work and red-tape, a shortened selling cycle, and, not surprisingly, increased customer satisfaction. The longer-term, cumulative effect has been achievement of company strategic objectives (e.g., selling solutions rather than components; emphasis on e-business on demand), with associated cost saving and cost avoidance and revenue enhancement. Fifty (50) randomly chosen business impact cases demonstrate how implementation of action plans developed in the program generally led to achievement of business results.

These cases strongly suggest that the program has acted as catalyst to enable participants to generate millions of dollars in new revenue, in cost savings, and in cost avoidance. The participants associated with these cases believe strongly that the Role of the Manager has been a “contributing factor” in helping them achieve these results. Many non-financial, behavioral results were also claimed, as noted above. The estimated actual or expected financial impact of a handful of cases alone suggest the program has contributed to generating over $280M in new revenue, resulting in a net gain of $200M over the $80M price tag of the program. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE CASES: 1. Opportunity/Challenge Prior to the program, the revenue plan for the CUE team for Q3 was $34M. Their revenue forecast for the quarter was $30.5M and their actual was $26M when they attended the program session. The team lacked collaboration and a solid communication approach. IMPACT: The program acted as catalyst for the team to improve revenue by $5.5M in Q3 (i.e., the difference between forecast [$30.5M] prior to attending and actual revenue at close of quarter [$36M]). Program was described by participants as improving teambuilding, communication and collaboration, and for action planning to focus team on achieving their business objectives. The team believes strongly that the program is an excellent investment and should continue. 2. Opportunity/Challenge Managers decided to seek specific actions within their groups to help modify the “old way” of doing things. One imperative was in taking appropriate risks in showing ownership and in accountability. IMPACT: The maintenance contract selling rate, previously 30%, rose to 50% since implementing this change. As every percentage point is worth on average $10K, revenue increase by year’s end will likely be at least $200K for a team of 6 sales-support individuals. This increase translates into an estimated $1.6M for a group of 50 individuals. Maintenance contract renewal rates have increased since implementation of a metric tracking this area from 55% at 4Q2002 to 63% year-to-date 2003. Renewal of each contract generates an estimated $4K, and the group has 1,500 contracts, resulting in $6M of business. At the old renewal rate of 55%, this business led to an estimated $3.78M. In contrast, the current renewal rate generates an estimated $3.3M. Implementation of the new measurement-tracking metric has contributed increased revenue of $480K. Implementation of these two new measures has generated at least $2M in revenue for the group.

Selected Q2 2003 Business Impact Cases Case# & Geography Manager Imperative Financial Impact #001 Americas -US Improved timely entry of claim data Operations costs savings Late claim submissions reduced from 2% – 5% down to 0% #011Germany Shared ideas across brands Savings of $250K in work hours #012 LA - Brazil Improved proposal process Pipeline improved from $40M to $140M (December–

May) #013 EMEA - UK Re-engineered win/bid process Estimated $100M/Q in additional revenue #004Americas - US Developed broader strategic thinking Account worth $10 million #006 Americas -US Developed consistent account plan Estimated $2 to $3 million in secured opportunity revenue 1 million storage contract #007 EMEA-UK Harnessed industry knowledge Estimated additional $48 million revenue #010 Canada Increased employee face time Closed two deals over $200,000; prior average deal was $11,000 #011 Americas -US Encouraged cross-brand selling Increased baseline sales for Q4 ’02 by $10 million. Increased server sales via channels by $800K/Q #012 Americas -US Clarified team roles Increased pipeline by $2.7million; up 9% from Q1 ‘02. #014 Americas -US Engaged product SMEs in employee education Increased Q1 software opportunities in the pipeline from $200K at start to over $5M. Closed $250K securities software business in Q1 ‘03 vs. $500K for all of 2002. #023 Americas -US Increased coaching on strategy & tactics Increased revenue attainment, currently 102% of plan #024 South Africa Created a greater customer focus Increased sales opportunity pipeline from $130M to $150M

In August of 2003, with over 16,000 managers, a second independent study was conducted by Employee Research on Role of the Manager Effectiveness: Impact on employee attitudes. This highlights the research carried out to evaluate the impact of Role of the Manager (ROM) training on employee attitudes as measured by the Global Pulse Survey (GPS). ROM training participation statistics and GPS data from 2002 through July 2003 were used for the analyses. Statistically significant findings were evident in the following areas. Units with greater participation in ROM have greater improvements in employee satisfaction, clarity, and leadership ratings than units with less or no ROM. Participation in ROM is associated with improved employee satisfaction ratings, particularly ratings as an employer (Q2).Participation in ROM is associated with improved clarity & leadership ratings, particularly ratings of making the changes to compete (Q5), management translating goals to action (Q7), and having a clear link between strategy and one's job (Q8); ability to get needed information (Q15) and improved ratings of opportunity to improve skills (Q18) Shared Learning 9. What have been some of the specific lessons learned from designing and implementing this practice for the purposes of continuous internal improvement? Please discuss whether and how this practice might be transferred and replicated

both internally and externally to your organization. 9.0 Understanding Barriers to Implementing Team Action Plans Imperative leaders in the Manager ActionNet survey, in the email survey, and in followup interviews detailed the barriers preventing them from taking action. These learnings offer important insights to modify future intervention action, such as guiding team members’ goal setting, creating greater team support, and framing participants’ expectations. Lessons included: Action plans covered nonessential changes – Action plans that were not focused on fundamental issues in the organization were less likely to motivate participants to work for their implementation. Participants did not feel that implementation of these action plans would make a major impact. Ambitious action plans – Action plans that were very broad and involved major commitment of time and involvement of various organization and teams were less likely to be implemented. Low business priority action plans – Performing their job responsibilities and keeping up with the pace of what is required of them took precedence over the implementation of an action plan that did not directly dealt with a business priority (e.g., quarter closure). Lack of time – Time was a major issue in many instances. Team members have many everyday job responsibilities and do not have time to spend working on additional projects. Ways to make efficient use of time is a suggested added component to the program. Need for executive support and sponsorship – This factor prevented some action plans, especially ones that require policy change, from being executed as team members did not have the executive commitment to obtain more resources, to get other organizations involved, etc. Existing metrics, measurement, and reward structure – Many participants feel that existing measurement and incentive system metrics act as a barrier to implementation of their action plans. Lack of discipline – Some participants felt that their team did not define a solid implementation plan for carrying out their action plan. As a result, they have not been able to break away from their routine work to focus on the implementation of the action plan. This is an important heads-up for future roll outs. Limited of accountability – Some participants feel that their participation in implementing an action plan is a “nice-to-do” activity; but they are not held accountable for their participation. Building action plans into personal business commitments is now a future aim of the intervention. Dependency on others – Implementation of action plans requires teamwork; some participants feel that their teammates are not committed to making these action plans

happen. This learning reinforces the need to focus on the “matrix management” component of the program. Cost cutting and lack of resources – Some participants felt that the work pressure created by reduced resources limits their team’s participation in implementing the action plans and prevents them from obtaining resources (money or other) needed to implement aspects of the action plan. Az űrlap teteje

CloseRecommend This Article

From :

To: Message:

Send Az űrlap alja

Close Suggest a topic or article headline you would like this author to write about.

Ads by Google

POS Market Magazin online de echipamente, soft, accesorii si consumabile POS. POSMarket.ro

Synucleins: Parkinson R&D

Alpha Synuclein Blocks ER-Golgi Traffic: Get Alpha Synuclein www.rPeptide.com/Synucleins

Advanced Retail Training

Retail Management Training-Sydney For High Performance Retail www.DMSRetail.com

Book Everyone Should Read Create Success by not leaving your success to chance. www.LateralApproach.com

Management Certification

Professional Designations Improve Your Resume Now www.businesscertification.org

ICT Innovation in Europe Read news,stories & blogs on cool tech, R&D programs etc. www.microsoft.eu/innovation

Employee evaluation

Teambuilding and strategy Appraisal interviews in teams www.bentehagelund.dk

Employee Motivation PDF Download Now: Exciting New Employee Motivation Strategies: Read Now! www.EnterpriseLeaders.com/Motivate

Managers are building blocks of the organization. A manager performs five basic functions Planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling. At all the levels of management we have managers working there and performing one or more of these managerial functions. A manager's main role is to achieve effective utilization of resources in an organization. He achieves so through coordinated human efforts. A manager has a very important role to play in achieving organizational objectives. He is responsible for aligning the individual's objectives with the organizational objectives. This is very essential for achieving long-term organizational success. A Manager is the one who communicates organizational vision to the employees of the organization. He should ensure that there is effective communication flow in an organization and that there should no misinterpretations taking place. A manager has crucial role to play in decision making process in an organization. He has to decide how to bring and communicate organizational changes. He plays a major role in setting organizational goals. He has to be in close contact with the employees of the organization. He should understand them and motivate them. He should encourage them so that they can perform effectively. He should praise them when they show brilliant performance and on bad performance, he should give them constructive feedback rather than negative feedback. He should provide them online support and coaching. A manager should resolve conflicts among the employees and try to reach at an acceptable solution. This would improve employees work quality as well as performance. Thus, a manager's role is very important so as to improve employees productivity as well as organization's productivity. He should understand that organizational success depends on employees. Thus the more satisfied and happy the employees are the more success the organization will show. A manager must be committed to his work so as to set an example for his subordinates. Managers at different levels have different roles to perform. In any organization we have mainly 3 levels of management and at all these levels we have different managers working with their respective powers and authority. Author is the writer of Levels of Management which explains in detail about the roles performed by managers at different levels.

Levels of Management The term “Levels of Management’ refers to a line of demarcation between various managerial positions in an organization. The number of levels in management increases when the size of the business and work force increases and vice versa. The level of management determines a chain of command, the amount of authority & status enjoyed by any managerial position. The levels of management can be classified in three broad categories: 1. Top level / Administrative level 2. Middle level / Executory 3. Low level / Supervisory / Operative / First-line managers

Managers at all these levels perform different functions. The role of managers at all the three levels is discussed below:

LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT 1. Top Level of Management

It consists of board of directors, chief executive or managing director. The top management is the ultimate source of authority and it manages goals and policies for an enterprise. It devotes more time on planning and coordinating functions. The role of the top management can be summarized as follows – a. Top management lays down the objectives and broad policies of the enterprise. b. It issues necessary instructions for preparation of department budgets, procedures, schedules etc. c. It prepares strategic plans & policies for the enterprise. d. It appoints the executive for middle level i.e. departmental managers. e. It controls & coordinates the activities of all the departments. f. It is also responsible for maintaining a contact with the outside world. g. It provides guidance and direction.

h. The top management is also responsible towards the shareholders for the performance of the enterprise. 2. Middle Level of Management

The branch managers and departmental managers constitute middle level. They are responsible to the top management for the functioning of their department. They devote more time to organizational and directional functions. In small organization, there is only one layer of middle level of management but in big enterprises, there may be senior and junior middle level management. Their role can be emphasized as – a. They execute the plans of the organization in accordance with the policies and directives of the top management. b. They make plans for the sub-units of the organization. c. They participate in employment & training of lower level management. d. They interpret and explain policies from top level management to lower level. e. They are responsible for coordinating the activities within the division or department. f. It also sends important reports and other important data to top level management. g. They evaluate performance of junior managers. h. They are also responsible for inspiring lower level managers towards better performance. 3. Lower Level of Management

Lower level is also known as supervisory / operative level of management. It consists of supervisors, foreman, section officers, superintendent etc. According to R.C. Davis, “Supervisory management refers to those executives whose work has to be largely with personal oversight and direction of operative employees”. In other words, they are concerned with direction and controlling function of management. Their activities include – a. Assigning of jobs and tasks to various workers. b. They guide and instruct workers for day to day activities. c. They are responsible for the quality as well as quantity of production. d. They are also entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining good relation in the organization. e. They communicate workers problems, suggestions, and recommendatory appeals etc to the higher level and higher level goals and objectives to the workers. f. They help to solve the grievances of the workers. g. They supervise & guide the sub-ordinates. h. They are responsible for providing training to the workers. i.

They arrange necessary materials, machines, tools etc for getting the things done.

j.

They prepare periodical reports about the performance of the workers.

k. They ensure discipline in the enterprise. l.

They motivate workers.

m. They are the image builders of the enterprise because they are in direct contact with the workers.

A leader has got multidimensional traits in him which makes him appealing and effective in behavior. The following are the requisites to be present in a good leader: 1. Physical appearance- A leader must have a pleasing appearance. Physique and health

are very important for a good leader. 2. Vision and foresight- A leader cannot maintain influence unless he exhibits that he is

forward looking. He has to visualize situations and thereby has to frame logical programmes. 3. Intelligence- A leader should be intelligent enough to examine problems and difficult

situations. He should be analytical who weighs pros and cons and then summarizes the situation. Therefore, a positive bent of mind and mature outlook is very important. 4. Communicative skills- A leader must be able to communicate the policies and

procedures clearly, precisely and effectively. This can be helpful in persuasion and stimulation. 5. Objective- A leader has to be having a fair outlook which is free from bias and which

does not reflects his willingness towards a particular individual. He should develop his own opinion and should base his judgement on facts and logic. 6. Knowledge of work- A leader should be very precisely knowing the nature of work of

his subordinates because it is then he can win the trust and confidence of his subordinates. 7. Sense of responsibility- Responsibility and accountability towards an individual’s

work is very important to bring a sense of influence. A leader must have a sense of responsibility towards organizational goals because only then he can get maximum of capabilities exploited in a real sense. For this, he has to motivate himself and arouse and urge to give best of his abilities. Only then he can motivate the subordinates to the best. 8. Self-confidence and will-power- Confidence in himself is important to earn the

confidence of the subordinates. He should be trustworthy and should handle the situations with full will power. 9. Humanist-This trait to be present in a leader is essential because he deals with human

beings and is in personal contact with them. He has to handle the personal problems of his subordinates with great care and attention. Therefore, treating the human beings on humanitarian grounds is essential for building a congenial environment. 10. Empathy- It is an old adage “Stepping into the shoes of others”. This is very

important because fair judgement and objectivity comes only then. A leader should understand the problems and complaints of employees and should also have a complete view of the needs and aspirations of the employees. This helps in improving human relations and personal contacts with the employees. From the above qualities present in a leader, one can understand the scope of leadership and it’s importance for scope of business. A leader cannot have all traits at one time. But a few of them helps in achieving effective results.

In these extraordinary times, leadership-as-usual is not an option. Every organization and every community is navigating through many unknowns. Collectively we are at a crossroads, and much is at stake. As leaders, how do we rise to this challenge? What simple but powerful approaches and practices will not only sustain us, but move our leadership to the next level? How do we release the capacity for innovation and resilience within and across our organizations and communities? How can we work together to co-create the sustainable organizations and systems of the future? Welcome to ALIA Europe, a six-day immersion in the fresh ideas, paradigm-shifting tools, and strategic conversations you need to guide your team, organization, or community through complex change. This programme follows the design of the acclaimed Shambhala Summer Institute based in Nova Scotia, which has been a magnet for pioneering thought leaders and change-makers since 2001.

Choose your focus Parallel modules are led by internationally recognized facilitators and leaders in their fields. Choose the module that best addresses your current leadership challenge. The Art of Hosting Transformational Change with Toke Paludan Møller, Monica Nissén, and Phil Cass Deep Democracy: Resolving Complex Issues and Reaching Decisions that Last with Myrna Lewis Embodied Leadership with Wendy Palmer An Integral Practice for Evolutionary Leadership and Change with Peter Merry and Dylan Newcomb Leading through Turbulent Times: The Art of Effective Execution with Lasse Wrennmark Practicing Fearlessness in Times of Fear with Margaret Wheatley and Jerry Granelli Solving Tough Problems: Co-creating New Realities in Complex Systems with Adam Kahane, LeAnne Grillo, and Mustafa Suleyman Transforming Leadership (Including Yours!) through Action Inquiry with David Rooke and Elaine Herdman-Barker

The schedule also includes... •

Plenary dialogues and keynotes. Stretch your thinking and tap into the collective experience of the programme community.

•

Theme-based sessions. Connect with others who share your interest, question, or professional context, from across the modules. Each theme will be introduced by a special guest and then facilitated in a way that maximizes peer learning.

•

Guided mindfulness meditation. Start each day by "paying attention to how you pay attention." Create the conditions for authentic insight, listening, and learning.

•

Creative process sessions. Engage the intelligence of the body and the senses, while freeing up creativity.

•

Arts events. Enjoy performance and improvisation led by accomplished artists.

•

Time to reflect. Mennorode Conference Centre has many nooks and crannies conducive to quiet conversation, and an adjacent woods that invites exploration.

“The ALIA Institute combines in-depth cultivation of personal leadership with the organizational issues that are critical in today's global environments. Few other leadership programmes create such a dynamic, living laboratory of personal and collective learning.” — Peter Senge, author, The Fifth Discipline, The Necessary Revolution, and others.

Schedule The programme begins with dinner on 10 January and concludes with a celebratory banquet on 15 January, with departure on the 16th. A more detailed schedule is available here.

Who else will be there 225 forward-thinking leaders and change agents from business, government, education, NGOs, and civil society.

Fees Fees include all programming and meals (except for the open evening) beginning with dinner on 10 January and ending with breakfast on 16 January. A minimum deposit of 50% will secure an early registration fee, with the balance due by 1 October 2009. €2,300 on or before 30 September, 2009 €2,600 after 30 September, 2009 See the Registration page for cancellation policy. Discounts: A 10% discount is available to teams of three or more from the same organization. A 10% discount is also available to employees of nonprofit organizations or educational institutions, and to full-time students. On-site accommodation at Mennorode Conference Centre: €396 single / €336 double occupancy (for six nights). Rooms available on a first-come, first-served basis. For more information and to make a reservation, see Accommodation and Travel, at left.

Coaching option Four one-on-one sessions with an Institute-affiliated coach will help you make the most of your program experience and maintain the momentum of your learning in your home setting.

Latest Job Brand Manager

Our client is a leading food & beverage company in a multinational enterprise that manufactures and market top quality and well known branded products. Location: Bangkok Benefit: Negotiable RESPONSIBILITIES The incumbent will be the custodian of the company’s brand with the responsibility of ensuring effective implementation of brand activities in line with the brand objectives. •

Build brand equity and achieve in both business objective and marketing objective

•

Oversee brand plan both short term and long term

•

Actively engage in all aspects of promotion, advertising, PR, and publicity

•

Make sure advertising and promotion are implemented to enhance brand equity

•

Successfully launch new products

QUALIFICATIONS •

A Bachelor’s Degree in Marketing preferably with a MBA

•

Minimum 3 years marketing and brand management in a managerial role. Experience in MNC/FMGC environment is preferable.

•

Sound analytical and communication skills

•

Very adaptable and good people skill

•

Good understanding of financial management

•

Experienced in successfully launching new products The incuGood understanding of financial management

•

•

MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS

•

•

• • • • • •

• •

•

• •

• •

•

• • • •

IN A GLOBAL

CONTEXT

Jean Brittain Leslie Maxine Dalton Christopher Ernst Jennifer Deal A Center for Creative Leadership Report

MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN A GLOBAL

CONTEXT

MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN A GLOBAL Jean Brittain Leslie Maxine Dalton Chris Ernst Jennifer Deal

CONTEXT

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Center for Creative Leadership Greensboro, North Carolina The Center for Creative Leadership is an international, nonprofit educational institution founded in 1970 to advance the understanding, practice, and development of leadership for the benefit of society worldwide. As a part of this mission, it publishes books and reports that aim to contribute to a general process of inquiry and understanding in which ideas related to leadership are raised, exchanged, and evaluated. The ideas presented in its publications are those of the author or authors. The Center thanks you for supporting its work through the purchase of this volume. If you have comments, suggestions, or questions about any Center publication, please contact John R. Alexander, President, at the address given below. Center for Creative Leadership Post Office Box 26300 Greensboro, North Carolina 27438-6300 ©2002 Center for Creative Leadership All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. CCL No. 184 Director of Publications: Martin Wilcox; Editor: Peter Scisco; Copy Editor: Deborah G. Shoffner; Design and Layout: Joanne Ferguson; Editorial Assistants: Denise Craig and Marianne Moorhead Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Managerial effectiveness in a global context / Jean Brittain Leslie . . . [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-882197-72-0 1. International business enterprises—Management. I. Leslie, Jean Brittain. II. Center for Creative Leadership. HD62.4.M363 2002 658’.049—dc21 2002067582

Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................. vii Preface ......................................................................................................................................... ........ ix Introduction ................................................................................................................................. ........ 1 Model ........................................................................................................................................... ......... 2 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... ......... 4 Group Assignment ........................................................................................................................... 4 Sample Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 5 Standardization of Data .................................................................................................................... 5

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Measures ....................................................................................................................................... .. 6 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... .. 8 CHAPTER 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work......................................................................................................................................... 9 Background ................................................................................................................................... .. 9 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 13 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2: Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context.............. 20 Background ................................................................................................................................... 20 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 24 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 26 CHAPTER 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager ..... 28 Background ................................................................................................................................... 29 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 30 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 37 CHAPTER 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context ................................................................................................................................... 42 Background ................................................................................................................................... 42 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 45 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 47 CHAPTER 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness ................ 50 Background ................................................................................................................................... 51 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 52 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 57 CHAPTER 6: General Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................... 61 What Do Global Managers Do? ..................................................................................................... 62 What Does It Take for a Manager to Be Effective When the Work Is Global in Scope? ............. 63 How Can Organizations Best Select and Develop Effective Global Managers? ........................... 64

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 65 References .................................................................................................................................... ...... 67 Appendix A: Participant Background Form ................................................................................... 77 Appendix B: Scales and Alphas......................................................................................................... 81 Appendix C: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Boss Global) ............................................................. 85 v vi Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Appendix D: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Boss Local) ............................................................... 86 Appendix E: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Direct Report Global) ............................................. 87 Appendix F: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Direct Report Local) ............................................... 88 Appendix G: Hypotheses Organized by Questions of Interest ....................................................... 89 vii

Tables and Figures Table 1.1 Importance Ratings for High- and Low-Global-Complexity Jobs ................................... 18 Table 1.2 Role-Behavior Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................................................. 19 Table 2.1 The Five-Factor Model as Measured by the NEO PIR ................................................... 22 Table 2.2 Personality Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................................................. 27 Table 2.3 Personality Scale Correlations with Roles for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ............................................................................................................................ 28 Table 3.1 Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts .................................................................................... 38 Table 3.2 Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ........................................................................................ 38 Table 3.3 Knowledge Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................................................. 39 Table 3.4 Knowledge Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ....................................................................................................... 40 Table 3.5 Resilience Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................................................. 41 Table 3.6 Resilience Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ....................................................................................................... 41 Table 3.7 Capabilities Importance Ratings for High- and Low-Global-Complexity Jobs ............... 42 Table 4.1 Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Boss Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts .............................................................. 48 Table 4.2 Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................... 49 Table 4.3 Early life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Selected Capabilities for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts ................................................................... 50 Table 5.1 Heterogeneity of Group in Most Recent Domestic Job Correlated with Effectiveness

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts................................................. 58 Table 5.2 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company A ........................................................................................... 59 Table 5.3 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company B ........................................................................................... 60 Table 5.4 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company C ........................................................................................... 60 Table 5.5 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company D ........................................................................................... 61 Figure 1 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context ....... 3 Figure 2 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Managerial Roles)............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Personality) ...................................................................................................................... 21 viii Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Figure 4 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Managerial Capabilities).................................................................................................. 29 Figure 5 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Experience) ...................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 6 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Revised) ........................................................................................................................... 62 ix

Preface In 1998 the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) embarked on a research study designed to understand the capacities of individuals who are effective in global roles. It was created to examine the relationship between measures of effectiveness and the individual’s background, personality, learning skills, knowledge of the job, and the enactment of role behaviors. Seen from a larger perspective, the study worked within the scope of more than a decade of reports, books, articles, and other work devoted to answering the questions of what individuals need to be effective managing and leading global organizations. CCL has been part of that work (see, for example, London & Sessa, 1999; Sessa, Hansen, Prestridge, & Kossler, 1999; Wilson & Dalton, 1998). Despite all of this activity, CCL believed that there had not been a well-designed empirical study that tested the theories and investigated whether the skills and capacities that are critical to effectiveness in the global role differ from those skills and capacities critical to managerial effectiveness in a domestic role. Furthermore, if global and domestic leadership and management skills do differ, CCL wanted to determine if there were ways to develop those different skill sets in aspiring international executives. CCL took that approach partly to assist human resource professionals in multinational organizations who have been scrambling to work out staffing strategies (policies, programs, and procedures) to recruit, develop, select, and reward individuals capable of assuming responsibility for business functions across multiple country and cultural

• • • •

borders. Those goals shaped the design, development, and implementation of this study, and they provide a backdrop for this documentary report.

• • •

Introduction In the past decade an increasing number of international managers from multinational organizations have participated in development programs at the Center for Creative Leadership. These managers work across the borders of multiple countries simultaneously. Some of them are expatriates. Most are not. And although many of these managers are not wrestling with the issues of relocating and adjusting to living in a different culture, they all find themselves dealing with cultural issues—defined in the broadest context—every time they pick up the phone, log onto their e-mail, or disembark from an airplane. Working with these managers led us to ask fundamental questions about our current understanding of managerial effectiveness and whether or not it applied to managers who work in an increasingly complex global world. We asked ourselves: What do these managers do? Is it different from the work they did when they managed in their own countries, and if it is different, how so? What does it take for them to be effective when they manage across so many countries simultaneously? What do these managers need to know in order to be effective? What do organizations need to know and do in order to select and develop people who will manage and lead effectively in the global economy? This report is our attempt to address those questions. Although it is written for scholars, the practical implications of our work have been developed and published elsewhere (Dalton, Ernst, Deal, & Leslie, 2002). Other researchers have explored the characteristics or competencies of global managers. Gregersen, Morrison, and Black (1998), for example, conducted interviews and gathered survey data from international managers in identifying five characteristics of successful global leaders: (1) context specific knowledge and skills, (2) inquisitiveness, (3) personal character (connection and integrity), (4) duality (the capacity for managing uncertainty and the ability to balance tensions), and (5) savvy (business savvy and organizational savvy). Associates of the HayMcBer Group conducted critical incident interviews with 55 CEOs from a variety of industries located in 15 countries to determine the critical factors predicting global managerial effectiveness (Martin, 1997). They named competencies they believed are universal regardless of context (four competencies under each of three headings labeled Sharpening the Focus, Building Commitment, and Driving for Success) and identified three kinds of competencies that vary as a function of a given cultural context (business relationships, the role of action, and the style of authority). These two major studies reach similar conclusions regarding a proposed taxonomy of

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

effective global managers. Our aim in this report is not to offer yet another taxonomy. Our goal is to integrate a number of theories of leadership and managerial effectiveness as they relate to management in the global role, to test the utility of these theories, and to explore the dynamics that lie beneath their taxonomies. Using a more theoretical, integrative, and quantitative methodology, we want to better understand and link some of the precursors of global managerial effectiveness. This study investigated a large number of variables from a variety of perspectives—far too many for a single research article and in far too much detail to be of great interest to practitioners. 2 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive review of all of the hypotheses and analyses conducted as part of our investigation—those that proved fruitful and those that did not. Because of the complexity of this report, we offer the following road map. Following this introduction, we present and discuss our conceptual model, which we designed to help identify, appreciate, and explain the relationships among the skills, capacities, traits, and experiences managers need to be effective when their work is global in scope. The methods section relates to all subsequent chapters. We have organized the chapters following the methodology to match with our conceptual model. Each chapter presents background information on specific variables by reviewing key and relevant literature and by subsequently offering hypotheses regarding those variables, and concludes with results and a brief discussion. Chapter 1 sets the stage by introducing the work of global managers—what they do and how it is different from managerial work in a domestic context. Chapter 2 investigates the relationship of personality to effectiveness in a global role and considers personality as a precursor to the presence of the skills and capacities necessary for effectiveness. Chapter 3 explores the relationship between learning capabilities (self-development, perspective taking, and cultural adaptability) and managerial effectiveness. Chapter 4 explores how being a cosmopolitan —an individual who has lived and worked in many countries and speaks a number of languages —may increase the likelihood for effectiveness in a global role. Chapter 5 focuses on the influence of workgroup heterogeneity and homogeneity on effectiveness—does experience in managing a diverse workgroup in a domestic role increase the likelihood that an individual will be effective in a global role? The final chapter concludes with a discussion of what global managers do, what it takes for a manager to be effective when the work is global in scope, and how global managers can be selected and developed.

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

This report is written for our academic colleagues and for research-oriented practitioners. It is our hope that other researchers will find our conceptual model useful and intriguing enough to continue the exploration. Model To create our model we turned to the literature and identified those variables that have demonstrated links to managerial and leadership effectiveness, including: role behaviors (Mintzberg, 1973), coping with pressure and adversity, integrity (Kaplan, 1997), knowledge of the job (Kotter, 1988), and personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997). We added other variables to our model that the literature and our experience led us to suppose might be particularly salient for international jobs. These included learning capacities (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997) and three additional experience-based variables. One, cosmopolitanism, depicts an individual’s exposure to other languages and cultures during childhood and adolescence; the other two variables we called cultural heterogeneity and organizational cohort homogeneity. We defined cultural heterogeneity as an individual’s experience with man3 aging diverse groups while managing within his or her own country. Organizational cohort homogeneity explores the influence of workgroup similarity on perceptions of effectiveness. In other words, we explored the effects of managers’ demographic similarity (for example, number of years with company, national culture) to their cohort on how effective they were perceived to be. Our model (Figure 1) is conceptual, not statistical. Personality stands for an individual’s enduring traits that might help explain the kinds of experiences to which he or she is drawn and the kinds of capabilities and role behaviors he or she is most likely to have acquired. Experience refers to those experiences and demographic variables that individuals bring with them to the job. Experience may be critical in understanding why one manager is comfortable with the unfamiliar factors inherent in global work but another manager is not. Experience may also influence the skills and capacities a manager has acquired over time. Managerial capabilities includes three major categories of skills: learning behaviors, resilience, and business knowledge. Learning behaviors include the motivation and skill to work and learn across cultural differences, the willingness to take the perspective of others, and the capacity to learn from workplace experiences. These variables have held a tacitly strong position in the management-development literature and some of the global-management literature. Resilience refers to the ability to manage time and stress, factors that might be more salient when the management task is global in scope. The third skill group, business knowledge, represents knowledge of the business and business practices. We did not write specific chapters about business

• • • • • • • • • •

Figure 1 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context Managerial Roles Global Complexity Personality Experience Managerial Capabilities Managerial Effectiveness

•

Model

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

knowledge and resilience. Also not discussed here in any detail is the variable cognitive ability. We believe cognitive ability to be important to global managerial effectiveness, but because of the plethora of existing literature on the subject, and because of the difficulty in measuring the construct in a survey design, we excluded it from this paper. Managerial roles stands for those behaviors that managers employ to carry out the basic functions of their work: managing relationships, managing information, and managing action. Current thought suggests that although all of the roles are important, the need for a manager to enact a particular role shifts as a function of context. Managerial work in an international business represents a particular type of context. Global complexity represents the context of interest. We maintain that when the manager’s work is global in scope, the relationships of these variables to measures of effectiveness and to one another will be different from what they would be if the manager’s work were local in scope. We have operationalized global complexity as the additive function of having to manage across distance, country, and culture. The greater the time and geographical distances and the more countries that fall under a manager’s scope of responsibility, the greater the global complexity of the work. Thus, temporal, geographical, and cultural complexity separate low global complexity (domestic work) from high global complexity (global work). Methods The methodology described in this section pertains to all following chapters, which address specific parts of the conceptual model. Two hundred eleven managers from four organizations participated in our study. All managers included were approximately at the same organizational

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

level. Ninety-eight of the managers were from a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Twentyfive worked for a U.S. high-tech manufacturing firm. Forty-eight worked for a Swiss hospitality and service organization, and 40 worked for a Swedish truck-manufacturing organization. Group Assignment We used two items from our biographical measure to classify managers into either a lowor high-global-complexity group. The first item (“In how many countries are you a manager?”) allowed the following responses: (a) one country—I am not an expatriate, (b) one country —I am an expatriate, (c) more than one country on the same continent, and (d) more than one country on different continents. The second item (“In how many time zones do you work?”) allowed six responses: (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, (e) 5, and (f) 6 or more. In tandem, these two items formed a proxy measure we used to assess the level of global complexity inherent in a manager’s role. To form the low- and high-global-complexity groups, we took the following steps. First, we put both items on the same 4-point metric to give them equal weight in an additive function. Specifically, the item addressing number of time zones was collapsed from 6 to 4 points. Responses (a) and (f) were kept as unique categories (representing the low and high extremes of the value, respectively), and responses (b) and (c) and (d) and (e) were collapsed to form two middle5 range values. Second, the two items were summed (range = 2–8). Third, the median for the sample was calculated (median = 3). This procedure resulted in the formulation of two groups, a low-global-complexity group with values from 2 to 3 (n = 110) and a high-globalcomplexity group with values from 4 to 8 (n = 101). Sample Characteristics Both samples were predominantly comprised of well-educated white males with a mean age of 44 in the low-global-complexity group and 45 in the high-global-complexity group. The majority of managers in each group were educated in only one country. Members of the highglobalcomplexity group had been in their current jobs for less than a year. Managers in the highglobalcomplexity group were also more likely to have been expatriates in the past than were those in the low-global-complexity group. Although 41 countries were represented in the total sample, 43% of the group were Northern European by birth (German, Swedish, Swiss) and 18% were U.S. citizens by birth. Those percentages were reflective of the corporate headquarters’ locations of the four participating organizations. Participants lived in 30 countries at the time of

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • •

the study, with 66.9% living in Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, or the United States. Considering the split between low and high global complexity, individuals in the high-globalcomplexity sample were proportionately more likely than the low-global-complexity sample to speak English (39%) or French (10%) as their native language. The individuals in the low-globalcomplexity sample were proportionately more likely than those in the high-global-complexity group to speak German (33%) or Swedish (18%) as their native language. Standardization of Data We investigated the influence of native country of target manager (culture) and organization type on the criterion measures to determine the need to standardize the data from the four organizations before merging it. Using the native culture of participants, we created a measure to represent cultural regions (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). The regions included Anglo (n = 63), Germanic (n = 68), and Nordic (n = 37). This accounted for 167 of the participants. Other regions—Arab (n = 3), Far East (n = 5), Latin European (n = 9), Latin American Spanish (n = 6), Near Eastern (n = 2), and Independent (n = 9)—were not used due to the small sample size. We then conducted a one-way ANOVA between groups to compare means of the three regions on the managerial effectiveness ratings. No differences were found in criterion scores as a result of the cultural region of the target manager. We repeated this analysis to assess the impact of organizational type on ratings (location of headquarters was partly confounded with organizational type because the pharmaceutical and service industry companies had corporate headquarters in the same country). Organizational type included pharmaceutical (Switzerland), high-tech manufacturing (United States), service (Switzerland), and truck manufacturing (Sweden). Again, we found no differences from the boss’s perspective. Nonetheless, these data were standardized within the four organizations Methods 6 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

before merging the four data sets. Standardizing the data within organizations helped to control for variation due to organizational culture, business and economic context, and industry type. Measures Independent variables. Personality measure. The NEO PI-R was used to represent the personality conceptualized as the five-factor model (FFM), which groups personality traits into five domains (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each domain is made up of six facets or subscales and these six facets define each of the factor domains. The NEO PI-R was chosen because of its psychometric integrity and

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

because extensive research has demonstrated that these five factors do appear to be universal, if not all-inclusive, across cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997). (See Chapter 5 for further details. Alphas for the five factors are provided in Appendix B.) Demographics. Each manager filled out a biographical form indicating gender, age, native language, country of birth, and race or ethnic origin. Experiences. Each manager filled out a biographical form indicating tenure, years in current role, expatriate experience, languages spoken in the course of doing work, languages spoken before age 13, number of countries lived in, country currently living in, years of formal education, number of countries educated in, and major field of study. Managers were also asked to indicate for their most recent domestic job the relationship, sex, race or ethnic origin, age, native country, country of current residence, and functional area for ten members of their workgroup. Roles. We used a measure of 75 items to represent role behavior. We derived these items from an existing instrument, SKILLSCOPE (Kaplan, 1997), and from our review of the literature. Of the 75 items, 9 were dropped during preliminary analyses due to poor item-total correlations. For data reduction purposes, the remaining 66 items were subjected to a principal component analysis (principal axis method, with orthogonal rotation). When requesting a 7-factor structure, 50 items loaded cleanly on their expected factor. We used inferences taken from the data and our conceptual understanding of the items on the remaining 16 items to incorporate an additional 6 items into the 7 scales. The remaining 10 items were dropped from subsequent analyses. (See Chapter 1 for a complete discussion of role importance and effectiveness.) Capabilities. Capabilities comprised three sets of scales: learning, knowledge, and resilience. We used 37 items to represent the learning constructs. We derived these items from existing instruments (SKILLSCOPE: Kaplan, 1997; Prospector: McCall, Spreitzer, & Mahoney, 1997) and our review of the literature. Following the same analytic strategy previously described for roles, a request for a 3-factor solution resulted in 28 items loading on their expected factor. The remaining 9 items, which did not load in a meaningful way on any given factor, were dropped. A further investigation of the items representing the intercorrelations of the learning scales cultural adaptability and perspective taking, and the knowledge scale international business knowledge, suggested that further data reduction might be appropriate. A factor analysis of the scales for perspective taking, cultural adaptability, and international business knowledge produced a more

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

•

conceptually satisfying and parsimonious solution. In the final analysis we used 10 items to 7

represent the construct international business knowledge. We used 5 items to represent the construct cultural adaptability. Four items were used to represent the construct perspective taking. The remaining items were dropped from further analysis. Eight items were used to represent the knowledge construct. Four items were used to represent the insightful construct. These items were derived from an existing instrument (Prospector: McCall, Spreitzer, & Mahoney, 1997) and our review of the literature. Four items were used to represent the resilience construct coping. Seven items were used to represent time management and three items were used to represent integrity. We derived these items from SKILLSCOPE (Kaplan, 1997) and our review of the literature. (Scales, items, and alphas can be found in Appendix B.) Dependent variables. Managerial effectiveness as depicted in our model (Figure 1) represents the observable things that people do related to stated goals. Additionally, job effectiveness is held to be multidimensional. A criterion taxonomy—a listing of the multiple facets of effectiveness— is a more precise means of organizing links between the specific predictors and specific effectiveness criteria rather than between predictors and overall effectiveness (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sage, 1993). To represent managerial effectiveness, 27 items were gathered from the literature, then supplemented and revised in consultation with one of the companies that sponsored the research project. The 27 items were written to address three dimensions of managerial effectiveness: business practices and outcomes, managerial and leadership qualities, and relationships. Further analysis and discussion by the research team suggested that these dimensions were better represented as five factors rather than three. We derived the final five dimensions of managerial effectiveness using three steps: 1. We conducted a principal components analysis at the individual-rater level with boss and direct report ratings combined (747 observations). Fifteen items loaded cleanly on one of five factors. 2. After a series of discussions related to the data and/or our conceptual understanding, we incorporated from the remaining 12 items an additional 9 items into the 5 scales. Three items were dropped. 3. The five derived scales and corresponding items were e-mailed to a group of CCL faculty members, who were asked to provide a name for each scale. These steps resulted in the final five dimensions of managerial effectiveness. The first scale was called managing and leading. It represented the traditional leadership behaviors of setting direction, inspiring, and motivating. It also included items that reference an internal focus and traditional manager-to-direct report activities, such as selection, development, coaching, and managing conflict. The second scale was called interpersonal relationships. This scale represented relationships with peers and senior managers inside the organization. The third scale was

•

• •

• •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

called knowledge and initiative. These items combined the characteristics of broad knowledge and professional competence with the personal attributes of confidence, independence, and initiative. The fourth scale was called success orientation. This scale represented an orientation toward goal achievement and attainment of desired organizational outcomes. It also included an Methods 8 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

item related to the potential to reach the most senior job in the company. The fifth scale, contextually adept, had an external focus and included items related to the ability to manage external relationships. (Scales and alphas can be seen in Appendix B.) Data Collection Participating managers completed the 240-item personality measure (NEO PI-R), the biographical form, and the measure of role skills and capabilities. The surveys were all in English. Managers were assured that their individual results would be available only to the research team. On the personality measure managers rated themselves on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. On the measure of role skills and capabilities managers first rated each item on a 3-point scale ranging from (1) this is not important to my current job to (3) this is extremely important to my current job. They then returned to the items and rated their own skill at performing each of the behaviors on a 5-point scale ranging from (5) this skill or perspective is one of my greatest strengths to (1) this skill or perspective is something I am not able to do. Bosses responded to the 27-item effectiveness statements on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A not applicable response category was provided. This measure was in English. Responses were returned directly to CCL. Respondents were assured that their individual responses would remain confidential to the research team. Although boss and direct report ratings were obtained, direct report ratings are not discussed in this report. Early examination of the direct report ratings in the high-global-complexity condition offered little to enhance our understanding because, like most multiperspective ratings, these respondents see things differently. Our focus turned to the perspective of the boss because it provided the best position for commenting on effectiveness under different conditions. The direct report ratings were dropped from the remaining report; however, the correlation matrices can be found in Appendices E and F. (See Appendices C–F for alphas and intercorrelations of all the measures by rater source.) Conclusion The methodology discussed in this section relates to the results and discussion that make up the remainder of this publication (excluding appendices). As described earlier, Chapter 1 introduces the work of global managers—what they do and how it is different from managerial work

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

in a domestic context. Chapter 2 focuses on the relationship of personality to effectiveness in a global role. Chapter 3 explores the relationship between learning capabilities (selfdevelopment, perspective taking, and cultural adaptability) and managerial effectiveness. Chapters 4 and 5 introduce the variables of experience into the model—life experiences related to the number of countries in which a manager has lived or worked, the number of languages a manager speaks or reads, and work experiences such as the influence of diversity on a global manager’s effectiveness. Chapter 6 offers a general discussion of the findings as they relate to the conceptual models, and draws some conclusions about what those findings have to say about managerial effectiveness in a global context. 9

CHAPTER 1 Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work The evolution of managerial models over the course of the twentieth century reveals that the manager’s reality has increased in complexity. During the first quarter of the century, Taylor (1911) and Fayol (1949) appropriately described the nature of work during the Industrial Revolution and portrayed the manager as one who plans, organizes, commands, coordinates, and controls. The next 25 years brought greater recognition to the social context of work and the introduction of human-relations models (Barnard, 1938; Mayo, 1933). These approaches stressed that managerial responsibility went beyond productivity and efficiency to include the need for attention to human relationships. Managerial models shifted once again during the quarter century following World War II. In an attempt to explain a managerial environment characterized by increasingly unpredictable and unstable environments, writers such as Katz and Kahn (1978) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) developed an “open systems” approach to evaluate organizational dynamics. These frameworks were consistent with the growing movements toward contingency theories and lent credence to the importance of context in understanding managerial behavior (Quinn, 1990). As the last quarter of the century drew to a close a new managerial reality emerged: the global manager. In addition to all that came before, temporal, geographical, and cultural complexity were added to the core of a manager’s work. These historical shifts have challenged scholars to reconsider their understanding of the nature of managerial work. Theoretical models have become inadequate, failing to address the heightened complexity of increasingly global business contexts. A conceptual framework has become necessary for designing appropriate

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

selection or training systems for developing global managerial talent. The current challenge to understand these changes is captured in two questions: 1. What do global managers do? 2. Is it any different from what domestic managers do? Background In addressing the question “What do global managers do?” we place our conceptualization of global complexity within the established literature on managerial roles (see Figure 2, p. 10). We begin by considering the recent literature’s portrayal of managerial roles. We follow with a model based on the work of Mintzberg (1973, 1994), which we use to evaluate managerial behavioral roles. We then suggest why this framework is useful for studying work that is globally complex. Finally, we consider how the context of global complexity can affect the extent to which certain behavioral roles are perceived as being relatively more or less important for managerial effectiveness. It is our belief that while some roles may be perceived equally regardless of the level of global complexity, other roles will be seen as increasingly important as the demands of work shift from a domestic to a global context. 10 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Considerable debate exists over the question of what domestic and global managers do. Some global theorists have argued that there is little difference. Others have suggested that noticeable differences exist both in scale (the global manager does more) and in quality (the global manager performs at a higher level). Recent writings have characterized global managers as “cultural synergizers” (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992), “true planetary citizens” (Roddick, 1991), “cross fertilizers” (Bartlett, Doz, & Hedlund, 1990), and “perpetual motion executives” (Malone, 1994). These colorful descriptions further suggest distinct roles and job content for global managers. Other research suggests that global work is the same as other types of managerial work, but that its level of difficulty is substantially greater (see, for example, Adler & Bartholomew, 1992). In 1994 Bartlett and Ghoshal suggested that the nature of global work is so complex that there is no such thing as a universal global manager. They recommended that an organization create three groups of global specialists—business managers, country managers, and functional managers—to lead the organization toward achieving its global strategy. Alternatively, Kanter (1995) wrote about a few but increasing number of global cosmopolitans who develop “world class” competence over crucial globalization processes. A model of managerial roles. In 1973 Mintzberg delved into an important but rarely investigated question: “What does a manager do?” He conducted an ethnographic study of

•

• • • •

managers in five organizations. His observations led him to a framework for management that differs radically from those of many past and present leadership theorists. It described managerial Figure 2 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Managerial Roles) Managerial Roles

• • • • • • •

Global Complexity Personality Experience Managerial Capabilities Managerial Effectiveness

•

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

monitor spokesperson leader liaison decision maker innovator negotiator

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11

activities as being fast paced, brief, varied, and discontinuous. In this framework managers have little time for reflection, and their work gravitates toward action and simply getting things done. Mintzberg (1973) further described work activities as contained within a set of ten behavioral roles. He organized his ten roles into three groups: informational roles (monitor, disseminator, spokesman) that require a manager to monitor, communicate, and manage information; interpersonal roles (figurehead, leader, liaison) that require a manager to act with and through others to get things done; and action roles (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator) that require a manager to negotiate and make decisions. These roles were not discrete or mutually exclusive but integrated parts of a whole. Mintzberg argued that effective managers often combine and perform several roles simultaneously. In a follow-up investigation Mintzberg (1994) kept the three overarching groups (informational, interpersonal, and action), but collapsed the ten roles into six. Based on our analyses of the data in our study (and incorporating Mintzberg’s 1973 and 1994 work), we incorporated seven roles into our research: Informational Roles

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• •

1. Monitor: scan environments, monitor units, probe and seek information, act as corporate nerve center of incoming information. 2. Spokesperson: communicate and disseminate information with multiple levels of the internal and extra-organizational system, advocate and represent the organization. Interpersonal Roles 3. Leader: motivate, coach, build teams, maintain corporate climate and culture, and supervise the work of others. 4. Liaison: network, coordinate, link entities, and span organizational boundaries. Action Roles 5. Decision maker: take action, troubleshoot, make decisions, and use power to get things done. 6. Innovator: try new approaches, seize opportunities, generate new ideas, and promote a vision. 7. Negotiator: make deals, translate strategy into action, negotiate contracts, manage conflict, and confront others. Other leadership and management scholars have also defined managerial roles (House & Mitchell, 1974; Luthans & Lockwood, 1984; Morse & Wagner, 1978). Quinn (1990) specified eight interconnected roles that effective managers perform: director, producer, monitor, coordinator, facilitator, mentor, innovator, and broker. Yukl (1989) integrated several decades of managerial-role research into a taxonomy of managerial behavior. A role-based framework is consistent with Katz and Kahn’s open systems approach (1978), in which roles are determined by inputs from the environment as well as variations in style as determined by the individual. They Chapter 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work 12 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

defined behavioral roles as the “recurring actions of an individual, appropriately interrelated with the repetitive activities of others so as to yield a predictable outcome” (p. 125). We have defined a role as a set of behaviors that belong to an identifiable position, believing that roles identify a limited and connected set of behaviors. But does the construct of roles hold when managerial responsibility transcends temporal, geographical, and cultural distance? The universality of managerial roles. While acknowledging that some researchers argue against a universal theory of management (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Hofstede, 1980), we contend that the construct of roles has universal value. We agree that managerial work is vastly different in many parts of the world and that on a global scale there is no one best way of doing anything. Yet we also feel that role-based theories of managerial work are successful in describing managerial work in a diverse, pluralistic world. Behavioral roles describe what a manager does. In our investigation of managerial roles we have focused on what managers do, rather than the why or how behind the activities that comprise the complete set of managerial roles. Although we believe that the latter issues are significantly affected by variations in cultural beliefs, values, and norms, we feel that the issue of what

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

managers do more directly reflects the content of managerial work. We recognize that, beyond societal culture, the organizational climate and culture affects managerial roles, as does variations in managerial style. We expect these differences to influence the extent to which certain role behaviors are more or less descriptive of managerial effectiveness. We also argue that in a globally complex environment managers are challenged to perform more roles and devise new roles not captured by our current role-behavior models. Akin to Bass’s (1997) position concerning the possible universality of transformational leadership, we believe managerial roles demonstrate “not a constancy of means, variances, and correlations across all situations, but rather an explanatory construct good for all situations” (p. 130). We submit that to conceive management as a series of unfolding roles is good for all situations. With this understanding we now consider how the context of global complexity may impact the roles that a manager plays. Similarities and differences in global and domestic work. Mintzberg (1994) argued that although all managers perform a series of roles, that does not suggest that all managers perform the same roles in the same manner. Specifically, he suggested that aspects of the work varied depending upon four sets of variables: environment (differences in milieu, the industry, and the organization), job (differences in job level, such as middle or top management, and function, such as marketing or sales), person (differences in personality and style characteristics of the manager), and situational (differences in temporal and contextual features—seasonal variations or temporary crises, for example). Each of these four variables is expected to influence the degree and extent to which managers exhibit the various roles. Because of differences in job functions, line managers, for instance, are expected to spend more time in the action roles (negotiator, decision maker), whereas human resource specialists are expected to pay greater attention to the informational roles (monitor, disseminator). Likewise, a team manager will tend to emphasize relational roles (leader, liaison). 13

These examples illustrate how the four variables impose greater or lesser attention to various aspects of the work. This framework has provided a rich backdrop from which organizational researchers have investigated differences in managerial roles. Mintzberg’s job variables have dominated the attention of researchers and have been studied both in terms of hierarchical level (Lau & Pavett, 1980; Pavett & Lau, 1983; Sen & Das, 1990) and functional area (McCall & Segrist, 1980; Paolillo, 1987). Pavett and Lau (1983) found significant differences between top- and lower-level managers on eight of the ten Mintzberg roles

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

and differences between middle- and lower-level managers on six of the ten roles. Other studies have considered the person variables in terms of gender differences (Smith & Schellenberger, 1991) as well as age, tenure, and educational level (Beggs & Doolittle, 1988). Less research has been conducted regarding the situational and environmental variables, but there is one study of direct interest to the work documented in this report. Gibbs (1994) organized Mintzberg’s environmental variables in terms of two constructs: complexity (the number of elements in which managerial interaction is required) and dynamism (the rate of change between these elements). Combinations of these variables produced a 2 x 2 matrix (stable-simple, stable-complex, dynamic-simple, dynamic-complex) that allowed Gibbs to test for both direct and indirect effects. The overall pattern that emerged from the two organizations sampled suggested that (a) complexity increases the frequency of informational roles, (b) complexity and dynamism increase the frequency of action roles, and (c) dynamism increases the frequency of relational roles; however, this relationship is moderated by complexity such that relational roles are more frequent in complex environments as opposed to simple environments. Gibbs concluded that current “trends toward the computerization of the technical core, the globalization of many businesses, and the increase in education of the workforce . . . implies that the environment and technology will increasingly be better predictors of managerial-role activity than previous hypotheses of functional area, level in hierarchy, or other internal structural dimensions” (p. 601). We agree with Gibbs’s conclusion and feel confident that in today’s business environment, variations in situation and environment are as compelling in explaining managerial work as are differences in job and person. Global complexity, defined in terms of temporal, geographical, and cultural distance, clearly implies environmental and situational difference. Consistent with Mintzberg, we would expect that although the requisite behaviors are generally the same, the importance of these behaviors may shift according to variations in global complexity. Hypotheses Informational roles. Informational roles require managers to monitor information both inside and outside the organization, and then disseminate this information as a spokesperson for the organization. In such roles managers are not working directly with people or with actions but instead are using information as an indirect way to make things happen. Given the tremendous information flows of the global business environment, we expect global managers to attribute more importance to the roles of monitor and spokesperson. Chapter 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work 14 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The periphery of the global organization is marked by continual change in technology, competitors, customers, suppliers, and products. These movements push to create new business advantages and new growth markets. In this fast-paced and competitive environment, global managers are required to process, integrate, and communicate based on significant amounts of disparate information. Bartlett, Doz, and Hedlund (1990) have stated that within interdependent and geographically dispersed global organizations, global managers serve as “cross-fertilizers” who create the glue that melds a shared vision, strategy, and norms. Global managers cannot just articulate the corporate vision, but must also encourage the flow of local, tacit information throughout the organization. Global managers have also been described as “cross-pollinators,” “global scanners,” and “cultural synergizers” (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992). Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994) identified one type of global manager, the functional manager, who scans across the organization to cross-pollinate ideas and champion innovation. The context of global complexity suggests increased attention to the roles of monitor and spokesperson as global managers seek to act as the organizational gatekeepers. As for the informational roles, we predict HYPOTHESIS 1.1: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the roles of monitor and spokesperson than will managers in contexts of low global complexity. Relational roles. Relational roles require managers to coach, motivate, and supervise the work of others, and to network, coordinate, and span organizational boundaries. “To manage through people, instead of by information, is to move one step closer to action, but still remain removed from it,” Mintzberg has stated. “That is because here the focus of managerial attention becomes affect instead of effect” (1994, p. 18). Several organizational researchers, such as Gregersen, Morrison, and Black (1998), have suggested that a global manager’s savvy concerning interpersonal or relational skills can spell the difference between success and failure in the global environment. We believe that although the role of leader will not differentiate between domestic and global work, the role of liaison will become increasingly important in global settings. In focusing on the importance of role behaviors, we are considering the actual nature or content of the work rather than the level of skill required to effectively do the work. We agree that interpersonal competence is a hallmark of effective global leadership, and we have included several relational-based variables in our research—for example, the learning capability of cultural adaptability, the personality characteristic of agreeableness, the experiential variable of cosmopolitanism—that we believe will be important indicators of effectiveness when managers

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

are working globally. However, we do not believe that behaviors descriptive of the leader role— such as coaching and mentoring, inspiring and delegating, and building teams and supervising others—become differentially more important when work responsibility moves from a domestic to a global context. 15

Malone (1994) used personal accounts to describe how global “perpetual motion executives” work and manage the work of others from long distance. He described typical norms such as handling 40–75 e-mail messages daily, having face-to-face contact with direct reports once every six weeks, and working in airplanes and from airports. These norms unquestionably put added stress on the traditional supervisor-direct report relationship. Maintaining strong working relationships is critical to both domestic and global managers, and it’s made more difficult for global managers who must find ways to maintain these relationships across distance, countries, and cultures. In contrast, we see the relational role of liaison as more important in globally complex work. During the 1990s multinational firms gained access to more than a billion new customers in remote and emerging economies (Prahalad & Oosterveld, 1999). Strategy theorists have stressed the extent and speed with which global organizations must consummate relationships leading to mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances, and licensing arrangements. Kanter (1995) has said that world-class executives and organizations are defined by the presence of concepts (the best and latest knowledge and ideas), competence (the ability to perform according to best-in-world standards), and connections (a set of relationships providing access to global resources). To form connections, global managers forge relationships that span companies and countries to bring collaborative advantage to the organization. Ohmae (1990) wrote about the power of joint ventures and consortiums to develop insider status within North America, Western Europe, and Asia. Perlmutter and Heenan (1994) suggested that global cooperation between firms is best achieved through global strategic partnerships. These business imperatives suggest that the role of liaison will take on heightened importance for the work of the global manager. For the relational roles, we predict HYPOTHESIS 1.2: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the role of liaison than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in both contexts will perceive the role of leader equally. Action roles. In the action roles—decision maker, innovator, and negotiator—managers are required to make decisions, resolve crises, seize opportunities, negotiate contracts, and manage conflict. As Mintzberg stated, “if managers manage passively by information and affectively

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

through people, then they also manage instrumentally by their own direct involvement in action” (1994, p. 20). We believe that, counter to the previous sets of roles (managing information and managing relationships), the action roles will not differentiate in importance between managers in contexts of low and high global complexity. In a study within several major global organizations, Yeung and Ready (1995) identified six qualities that organizations value in global managers: (1) to be a catalyst/manager of strategic change, (2) to be a catalyst/manager of cultural change, (3) to articulate a tangible vision, values, and strategies, (4) to exhibit a strong customer orientation, (5) to empower others to do their best, and (6) to get results. A close reading of these characteristics suggests a type of management Chapter 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work 16 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

responsibility that is noticeably removed from the day-to-day action of the organization. Rather than managing actively through direct involvement, the demands of global work may move to isolate the global manager, at least in part, from the daily operations of the organization. As an organization’s strategies and systems globalize, its key organizational characteristic is to operate across national boundaries, simultaneously achieving global integration while retaining local differentiation. In a strategy of global integration, successful multinationals seek the advantages of local differentiation (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). This requires strong and empowered local managers who understand local needs and interests. As suggested by Quelch and Bloom, overemphasizing global integration leads to management that lacks the “geographic knowledge, political know-how, flexibility, and cultural sensitivity to assess the evolving environment and take appropriate action” (1996, p. 32). The strategy of global integration and local differentiation suggests that significant decision-making and negotiating responsibility should be held at the level of the local market. Ohmae (1990) has written that firms only achieve insider position when they entrust local managers who are familiar with and responsive to local conditions. Certainly, the work of the global manager requires significant attention to such behaviors as making decisions, negotiating contracts, generating new ideas, and managing conflict. Yet, from the standpoint of what managers do, we believe that the responsibility of the global manager does not require differentially more attention to the action roles of decision maker, innovator, and negotiator. For the action roles, we predict HYPOTHESIS 1.3: Managers in contexts of high and low global complexity will perceive the roles of decision maker, innovator, and negotiator equally. Role skill and managerial effectiveness. In addition to focusing on what global managers

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

do (role importance), we also want to better understand the skill that managers bring to those roles in settings of low and high global complexity and how those role skills relate to managerial effectiveness. As Figure 1 illustrates, we intend to examine both the independent and shared relationships between managerial role skill and the other variables in the model. Under this line of investigation, our question of interest is not “What do global managers do?” but rather “How is what global managers do related to perceptions of their effectiveness?” Although Mintzberg’s (1973) model is descriptive (describing what managers do) rather than prescriptive (predicting determinants of managerial effectiveness), it is clear from his framework that effectiveness centers upon the ability to perform multiple roles. That is also our position. We are interested in determining whether a specific role, or group of roles, is critical for effectiveness in global managerial settings. We are also interested in determining whether these relationships are the same or different compared to managers working in a context of low global complexity. Based on the pattern of results presented below for role importance, we propose the following hypotheses: 17

HYPOTHESIS 1.4: The role of monitor will be related to the effectiveness criterion contextually adept for managers in contexts of low and high global complexity. HYPOTHESIS 1.5: The role of spokesperson will be related to the effectiveness criterion contextually adept for managers in contexts of high global complexity. HYPOTHESIS 1.6: The role of leader will be related to the effectiveness criterion managing and leading for managers in contexts of low global complexity. HYPOTHESIS 1.7: The role of liaison will be related to the effectiveness criteria contextually adept and interpersonal relationships for managers in high-global-complexity jobs. HYPOTHESIS 1.8: The role of decision maker will be related to the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation for managers in low- and highglobalcomplexity jobs. HYPOTHESIS 1.9: The role of innovator will be related to the effectiveness criterion knowledge and initiative for managers in low- and high-global-complexity jobs. HYPOTHESIS 1.10: The role of negotiator will be related to all effectiveness criteria for managers in low- and high-global-complexity jobs. Results and Discussion Role importance. Both independent sample t-tests and nonparametric Mann–Whitney U analyses were conducted to test for mean differences reported by managers in contexts of low and high global complexity on the level of importance attributed to the seven managerial roles. The nonparametric tests were conducted out of concern that the response anchors for the role importance data are not interval level. However, because the findings from the nonparametric tests are parallel to the findings from the t-tests, only the t-test results will be discussed. The results are presented in Table 1.1. Hypothesis 1.1 was partially supported; differences

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

were found for the spokesperson role, but not for the monitor role. Hypothesis 1.2 was partially supported. The liaison role, as expected, was perceived as being significantly more important to job effectiveness by managers in high-global-complexity jobs. Counter to expectation, managers in low-global-complexity jobs attributed more importance to the role of leader. Finally, Hypothesis 1.3 was supported; no differences were found between the two groups of managers on the three action roles. These findings indicate that what global managers do is largely the same as what domestic managers do, but with important differences in emphasis. Managers in high- and lowglobalcomplexity jobs did not differentiate in the level of importance attributed to the roles of monitor, Chapter 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work 18 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

•

decision maker, innovator, and negotiator. Yet, the findings also highlight an interesting shift in the degree of emphasis attributed to several of the roles as work responsibilities move from low to high global complexity. Global managers emphasize less the more internal-oriented role of leader, and emphasize more the external-oriented roles of spokesperson and liaison. These findings suggest that as managerial responsibilities grow more global in scope, managers are increasingly called upon to disseminate information to a host of diverse constituents along the organizational periphery. Table 1.1 Role effectiveness. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the seven role behaviors and the five effectiveness measures as rated by the boss for global and domestic managers. The hypotheses were based on the pattern of results found for ratings of role importance. The results for boss ratings are provided in Table 1.2.

• • •

Table 1.2 Role-Behavior Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

• • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

19

Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 101 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Monitor .15 .006 .19 .18 .18 Spokesperson .33 .19 .26 .26 .26 Leader .23a .14 .18 .19 .26 Liaison .13 .16 .15 .21 .13 Decision maker .21 .01 .21a .21a .27 Innovator .006 –.04 .16a .05 .15 Negotiator –.05a –.02a .13a .07a .11a High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 80 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Monitor .11 .001 .14 .15 .04 Spokesperson .12 –.03 .19 .01 .07a Leader .18 .03 .27 .06 .14 Liaison –.03 .07a .17 .13 .08a Decision maker .17 –.002 .38a .25a .17

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

Innovator .09 .02 .24a .10 .07 Negotiator .22a .16a .38a .26a .17a Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Hypothesis 1.4 was not supported; the monitor role was not related to any of the effectiveness measures for managers in either the low- or high-global-complexity condition. Hypothesis 1.5 was not supported; counter to expectation, the spokesperson role was a differentiator of effectiveness for managers in low-global-complexity conditions rather than managers in highglobalcomplexity conditions. Hypothesis 1.6 was supported. Hypothesis 1.7 was not supported; the liaison role was not related to any of the effectiveness measures for managers in the highglobalcomplexity condition. Hypothesis 1.8 was supported. Hypothesis 1.9 was partially supported; the innovator role was related to the knowledge and initiative measure but only for managers in settings of high global complexity. Finally, Hypothesis 1.10 was partially supported; the negotiator role was related to multiple effectiveness measures for managers in highglobalcomplexity conditions but not managers in low-global-complexity conditions. These results indicate that what managers in low- and high-global-complexity conditions think is important in their jobs does not correspond with what differentiates effectiveness. In hindsight this finding is not surprising given past 360-degree feedback research that demonstrates that importance and effectiveness are two separate constructs. This is perhaps especially true in the present research because managers themselves indicated importance levels while the effecChapter 1: Managerial Roles—Similarities and Differences in Domestic and Global Work 20 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

tiveness ratings were provided by the managers’ bosses. For example, the spokesperson role differentiated effectiveness for managers in the low-global-complexity condition even though the spokesperson role was endorsed by managers in the high-global-complexity condition as being relatively more important to their jobs. Interestingly, and again counter to the findings for importance, it was the action roles that served as the strongest differentiators of effectiveness for global managers. For example, the innovator and negotiator roles were uniquely related to effectiveness for managers working in contexts of high global complexity. This illustrates that new information emerges when managerial roles are viewed through the eyes of the managers’ bosses. CHAPTER 2 Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context This chapter of the report examines that part of the model that illustrates the relationship between personality and managerial effectiveness. It defines personality, explains why this

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

•

• • • • •

construct belongs in the model, describes the theory of personality used in this work, and then presents the instrument used to operationalize this theoretical perspective. Included is a brief discussion about the limitations of that instrument, the theory it represents, and some potential problems in using it with a population of individuals from many countries. Further, an overview of how personality has been directly linked to effectiveness for North American and European managers in domestic roles provides a basis for hypotheses about how these relationships might change when managerial work is global in scope. Finally, a discussion of the relationship of personality factors to other variables in the model gives rise to hypotheses about how personality may be indirectly linked to effectiveness; in other words, whether individuals with a particular personality predisposition are more likely to demonstrate a particular set of leadership skills. Background Hall and Lindzey have described personality “as the most outstanding or salient impression that an individual creates in others” (1978, p. 7). An individual’s personality is couched in terms that suggest attributes or qualities consistently characteristic of that person over time. Personality does not refer to a single trait or attribute but is a clustering of traits combined in limitless possible ways and permutations. Although the academic literature continues to debate the relative power of personality in predicting behavior, the lay person understands personality as a set of attributes that accurately characterize a person in many (but not every) contexts over time. One describes other people based on the consistent impression they make on others and often in ways that are consistent with how those people describe themselves: “She’s friendly,” for example, or “He’s a worrywart.” If a person behaves out of character, one is likely to say, “That’s not like him” or “That does not sound like her.” 21

Why we have included personality in our model. The debate over the role of personality in predicting human behavior (and a subset of that behavior, managerial and leadership effectiveness) has continued for 40 years (see, for example, Guion & Gottier, 1965; Mischel, 1977; Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997; Stogdill, 1974). To a great extent this debate has been an artifact of the state of the art of statistical and measurement capabilities within the field. The advent of meta-analytic statistical strategies and more precise and fine-grained measurement

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • •

•

tools has provided a better understanding of the role that personality plays in predicting managerial and leadership effectiveness. Personality does indeed account for some, but not all, of the effectiveness variance in a variety of organizational roles. Given that understanding, we include personality in our model for a number of reasons. For one, a growing literature points to the relationship of certain personality variables to managerial work. We wanted to understand if this holds true when the work is global in scope and when the incumbents are from a variety of countries and working across the world. We also wanted to understand the extent to which effectiveness in a global managerial role is related to stable and universal individual difference characteristics as this will have implications for selection procedures in international organizations. Additionally, we sought to understand the extent to which personality traits share variance with skills and perspectives related to effectiveness as this has implications for the developmental strategies of organizations. Finally, we wanted to be able to compare and contrast the relative contribution of experience and personality to effectiveness. Chapter 2: Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context

Figure 3 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Personality) Managerial Roles Global Complexity Personality conscientiousness extraversion openness agreeableness neuroticism

Experience Managerial Capabilities Managerial Effectiveness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

22 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Theory and measurement of personality. For our model, we chose the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality as representing a comprehensive attempt to describe and measure the structure of personality from a universal perspective. The FFM presumes that a listing and grouping of the adjectives that people use to describe themselves and others will reveal the full spectrum of personality traits and attributes of a people.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Using increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques, 50 years of research based on this lexical tradition has yielded five major factors, or domains, that many theoreticians believe represent the full spectrum of emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational traits for describing personality (Cattell, 1946; Digman, 1990; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1990; Norman, 1963). An instrument developed to represent and measure the FFM is the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R presents personality traits grouped into five major factors or domains. Each factor is made up of six facets or subscales and these six facets define each of the factor domains (see Table 2.1). Table 2.1 The Five-Factor Model as Measured by the NEO PI-R Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO FiveFactor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR, pp. 14–18. Factor (N) Neuroticism (E) Extraversion (O) Openness (A) Agreeableness (C) Conscientiousness Definition anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, selfdiscipline, deliberation Description This personality type has a general tendency to experience negative affects such as fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust. People with high N scores tend to be less able to control their impulses and cope poorly with stress. Extraverts are sociable. They like people, prefer large gatherings, and are assertive, active, and talkative. They like excitement and stimulation and tend to be energetic and optimistic. People with high O scores have an active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment. They are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values and they experience emotions more keenly than closed individuals. The agreeable person is altruistic, sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and trusting and cooperative rather than competitive.

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The person with a high C score is purposeful, strong-willed and determined, achievement oriented, scrupulous, punctual, and reliable. 23

Some psychometricians and cross-cultural researchers have argued that the FFM is not a comprehensive taxonomy of personality structure. For example, one U.S. theoretician (Hogan, 1983) wrote that extraversion is really two factors—sociability and ambition. Hough and Schneider (1996) argued that there are nine factors—the six listed by Hogan plus achievement, masculinity, and locus of control. After reviewing these arguments, we believed that the FFM was sufficiently robust as an explanatory device for our work and that the NEO PI-R, as a representation of the FFM, addressed the comprehensiveness debate by breaking each domain or factor into six facet scales, allowing for both a broad and more detailed look at the phenomena. The universality of the FFM. The concerns of cross-cultural psychologists as to the universality of the FFM were more critical to our work because global managers, as we defined them, are from many countries and work in many countries. It could be that a particular personality factor might manifest itself in one way with a manager from an individualistic culture and in another way with a manager from a collectivist culture (Cross, 1995). This would be particularly true if the manager’s behavior were being evaluated by direct reports because cultural differences are believed to be more manifest the farther down one goes in an organization (Peterson & Hunt, 1997). Determining how to measure a given construct when the research subjects come from a number of different countries/cultures is both controversial and difficult (see Church & Lonner, 1998; Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998). There are problems related to comprehensiveness and structure. There are issues related to the meaning and value attributed to the same traits across cultures. There are problems related to the scale equivalence and full-score comparability of the measurement tools across cultures. Despite these obstacles, strong support for the universal applicability of translated versions of the FFM exists (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998; Piedmont & Chae, 1997). Studies examining the structure of comprehensive collections of indigenous-trait terms have also reported good results from the use of the FFM (Church & Lonner, 1998). DeRaad, Perugini, and Szirmak (1997) identified the FFM as the best working hypothesis of an omnipresent trait structure. But our model was not about cross-cultural comparisons. Our population of interest was made up of managers from multiple countries who manage work and people in multiple countries in international organizations. The scope of the global managers’ work requires them to manage

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • •

across borders in a world that has defined the language of business as English. The scope of domestic managers’ work is in-country but is still part of an international organization. Our question of interest was not about cross-cultural differences but about managing across cultures. Arguments for the cross-cultural comprehensiveness of the FFM’s constructs and structure only tangentially support or detract from our decision to use this theory as represented by the NEO PI-R. We chose the English language version of the NEO PI-R as our tool for representing the construct of personality, with a respectful understanding of the drawbacks (Berry, 1990). Our choice was based on the premise that the traits represented by the NEO PI-R will predict manageChapter 2: Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context 24 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

rial effectiveness in organizations regardless of the manager’s cultural influences or country of origin. Granted, there may be indigenous traits that would predict effectiveness for domestic managers working in homogeneous groups in their own country. But we decided that the FFM will make meaningful predictions of effectiveness for English-speaking managers regardless of their country of origin or the country in which they might be working. The relationship of personality to job effectiveness and managerial effectiveness in a domestic context. In studies conducted in North America and Europe, researchers have demonstrated that the FFM has related to some important aspects of managerial effectiveness and job effectiveness. In a meta-analytic review of 117 criterion-related validity studies encompassing a sample of 23,994 subjects, Barrick and Mount (1991) reported that conscientiousness and extraversion were valid predictors of job proficiency for U.S. and Canadian managers. Openness, neuroticism, and agreeableness were not found to be valid predictors of effectiveness for managers in North America. Salgado (1997) replicated this work through meta-analysis using a sample of 36 studies conducted in the European community. He also found that conscientiousness was a valid predictor of job proficiency for managers. Additionally, neuroticism was a valid predictor of job proficiency for managers in this European sample, and extraversion and agreeableness were related to managerial effectiveness when the work required major interpersonal contact. In summary, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism have been found to be related to managerial effectiveness for managers in the United States, Canada, and Europe, with conscientiousness having the most consistent effect across the two metaanalytic studies. Hypotheses One of the arguments personality theorists make against the use of the Five-Factor Model is

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

that it is atheoretical. In other words, it describes but does not explain. We developed our hypotheses relating a particular factor or facet of personality to managerial effectiveness by tying our reasoning to the construct of psychological fit: the fit between the preferences and predisposition of an individual and the demands of the work. It should be noted that this is not a reference to the literature on organizational culture and fit; rather, it focuses on the fit between an individual’s disposition and the demands of that individual’s work. In this regard it is closer to the careerdevelopment and career-choice literature (see, for example, Holland, 1985; Super, 1957). In other words, it builds on the idea that individuals seek out situations that match well with their personalities (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1986; Kristof, 1996). If personality is a clustering of traits that predisposes individuals to behave in a certain way, then it is reasonable to suggest that people with a particular personality are more likely to be effective in a context where that behavior is considered to be appropriate, productive, and valued. This further suggests that there is a press within the context of managerial work that pulls for particular traits. Our thinking was also influenced by Murray’s thesis (1938) regarding personenvironment fit. 25

Along these lines, Andrews (1967) reported an interaction between the needs of managers and their organization’s values regarding achievement and power. Pritchard and Karasick (1973) reported a connection between the need for order and highly structured work environments. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found that the relationship between personality and managerial effectiveness was stronger when effectiveness was separated into task and contextual dimensions, suggesting that there are overall contextual aspects of managerial work that are similar across organizations and jobs. By definition some aspects of managerial work differ in terms of the work’s nature because jobs and functions within corporations can have unique aspects. Holding with this line of thought, for each of the five factors in this report we state our hypotheses and describe how the relationship of a personality trait to the criterion measures might shift or remain the same as the work becomes more global in scope. Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness has two themes: one of volition, the will to do well; and one of dependability, the predisposition to plan and be dependable. Ones and Viswesvaran (1997) have argued for a general theory of conscientiousness and managerial work and we concur. The dependable individual who desires to do well is more likely to be effective in the managerial role—regardless of the scope of the role—than the individual who is not so predisposed. HYPOTHESIS 2.1: Regardless of how globally complex the context is in which the manager works, conscientiousness will be positively associated with the effectiveness

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation. Extraversion. Extraversion, as defined by the NEO PI-R, represents both sociability and dominance needs. It represents one’s own personal needs to be with others and to be in charge when with others. Extraversion has been linked to managerial effectiveness when the job has a strong interpersonal component (Salgado, 1997). Because the population of interest in our study was collapsed across functions, the influence of function was masked. However, because the global manager works across cultures, often electronically or by telephone, we still expected the facets representing the sociable aspects of extraversion to be related to the leadership and interpersonal criteria as the manager’s work becomes more globally complex. HYPOTHESIS 2.2: Extraversion will be positively associated with the managerial effectiveness criteria managing and leading and interpersonal relationships when the work is more globally complex. Openness. Openness to experience was found to be related to training proficiency but not managerial effectiveness in the previously cited North American and European studies. Because the global manager is working across cultures, we hypothesized that an individual who is imaginative, fascinated by the novel, and open to the ideas and values of others would be more effective in a global role. However, we did not expect openness to be directly related to the outcome criteria. Chapter 2: Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context 26 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

We based our hypothesis for openness on the theory that a higher degree of effectiveness in a managerial role results from having mastered a variety of challenging experiences. In this case, we suggested that personality is one factor that predisposes some individuals to engage in challenging and novel experiences, and that individuals who have successfully engaged in those experiences are prepared to be successful in particular managerial roles. HYPOTHESIS 2.3: Openness will be positively associated with the role behavior innovator. Agreeableness. The global manager role requires versatile interpersonal skill, an ability to demonstrate interest in and concern for others across geographical and cultural distances. Because global managers deal not just with one culture but with multiple cultures simultaneously, it seems almost impossible that they could remain aware of all of the nuances of cultural meaning and behavior. We suggest that individuals who are agreeable, as defined by the NEO PI-R, would be more effective because they would be more likely to be forgiven their cultural missteps. Agreeableness has been found to be related to managerial effectiveness in European samples when the work has a strong interpersonal component (Salgado, 1997). We suggest that all global managerial work, by its nature, has a strong interpersonal component. HYPOTHESIS 2.4: Agreeableness will be positively associated with the managerial

• • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • • • •

• •

• •

effectiveness indicators managing and leading and interpersonal relationships when the managerial work is more globally complex. HYPOTHESIS 2.5: Agreeableness will be positively associated with the role behavior skills that are related to managing people: leader and liaison. Neuroticism. Although Salgado (1997) found neuroticism to be related to effectiveness for managers working in the European community, Barrick and Mount (1991) did not obtain the same results for managers in the United States and Canada. Because of the stress and uncertainty associated with global managerial work, we expected neuroticism to be a particularly important trait in explaining effectiveness outcomes. HYPOTHESIS 2.6: Neuroticism will be significantly and negatively correlated with all of the effectiveness criteria when the managerial work is more globally complex. Results and Discussion Zero-order correlations were conducted between the five factors on the NEO PI-R, the five criterion measures, and predicted role behaviors for global and local managers. The results are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. 27

Table 2.2 Personality Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Table 2.2 presents the results correlating managers’ personality scale ratings with bosses’ effectiveness ratings. Hypothesis 2.1 was supported for managers who work in a high global context but not managers who work in a low global context. Hypotheses 2.2 and 2.4 were not supported. Hypothesis 2.6 was partially supported from the boss perspective, but neuroticism was also related to effectiveness criteria for local managers. In retrospect this was not surprising, as emotional stability and conscientiousness were found to be general competencies related to effectiveness across jobs (Barrick, 2000). Many of our hypotheses were not supported. We had reasoned that although global and domestic managerial work are similar in their organizational and bureaucratic demands, they are different in their demands for interpersonal skill, openness to new experiences, and the ability to cope with stress and uncertainty. Because of this reasoning, we predicted that conscientiousness will behave in a similar fashion whether the managerial work is global or domestic in scope, but that agreeableness, openness, neuroticism, and extraversion will be more strongly related to the criterion measures for managers in global jobs than for managers in domestic jobs. We also believed that all five of the factors shared significant variance with other variables in the model

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

•

that in turn would be more critical in explaining global managerial effectiveness than in explaining domestic managerial effectiveness. Chapter 2: Managerial Traits—Personality and Effectiveness in a Global Context Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Managing and leading –.22 .19a –.06 –.10 .08 Managing and leading –.01a –.03 –.04 .10a .12 Interpersonal relationships –.12 .006a –.11 .007 .03 Interpersonal relationships .0003a –.004 –.02 .18a –.001 Knowledge and initiative –.17 .06 .04 –.11 .15a Knowledge and initiative –.23a

• • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

.09 –.02 .02 .34a Success orientation –.23 .11 –.05 –.12 .17a Success orientation –.07a .04 –.01 .002 .30a Contextually adept –.06 .10 .11 –.05 –.03 Contextually adept .008a –.08 –.02 –.06 .06 28 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Instead, neuroticism, not conscientiousness, was related to criterion ratings for managers in high- and low-global-complexity jobs. Conscientiousness was only related to criterion ratings for managers in the high-global-complexity condition. The correlations of personality traits with role skills are presented in Table 2.3. Hypothesis 2.3 was supported. Openness is positively associated with the role behavior innovator. Hypothesis 2.5 was partially supported. Agreeableness was positively associated with skill in the role of leader but not liaison. Table 2.3 Personality Scale Correlations with Roles for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

CHAPTER 3 Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager In our conceptual model we explored learning and effectiveness in global roles from several perspectives. These included the direct relationship of experiential learning to managerial effectiveness in the global role, specifically past experience managing diverse workgroups in

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

one’s own country (cultural heterogeneity) and experience with other cultures through early language training and by living in more than one country as a child and adolescent (cosmopolitanism). (These topics are addressed in Chapters 4 and 5.) In this chapter we explore the relationship of three specific learning behaviors to managerial effectiveness in jobs of high and low global complexity (see Figure 4). Innovator –.11 .30 .25a –.07 .04 Innovator –.17 .27 .25a –.01 .12 Negotiator –.07 .13 .05 –.06 .29 Negotiator –.37 .13 .00 .17 .42 Decision maker –.23 .30 .06 –.06 .28 Decision maker –.41 .25 .05 .11 .36 Liaison –.07 .21 .04 –.02 .15 Liaison –.28 .37 .16 .17a .21 Leader –.11 .27

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

.08 .08 .26 Leader –.27 .23 .05 .28a .25 Spokesperson –.22 .30 –.01 –.24 .14 Spokesperson –.22 .42 .21 .19 .25 Monitor –.19 .08 .02 .01 .25 Monitor –.41 .25 .09 .03 .24 Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious 29

Background In the United States over the past two decades, scholars have used the ability to learn from workplace experiences as a major construct to explain career success (attaining a seniorlevel organizational position) and managerial effectiveness. Researchers have argued that the opportunity and willingness to engage in a variety of work-based experiences and the ability and willingness to learn and adapt as a result are key factors in explaining managerial development and subsequent effectiveness (Keys & Wolfe, 1988; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; McCauley, 1986; Morrison & Hock, 1986; Nicolson & West, 1988; Spreitzer, McCall, &

• • •

•

Mahoney, 1997). More recently, taxonomies of global leadership skills and capacities have suggested that learning is a key to success in the global role. For example, Kanter (1995) has described an individual able to “learn from and leverage the heterogeneity and chaos of the worldwide market place.” Gregersen, Morrison, and Black (1998) have listed the characteristic of inquisitiveness as an essential trait of the effective international manager. Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) have identified those who search for opportunities to learn, seek and use feedback, remain open to criticism, and are flexible and cross-culturally adventurous as more likely to be effective in an international executive role.

• • • • • • • • •

Figure 4 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Managerial Capabilities) Managerial Roles Global Complexity Personality Experience Managerial Capabilities

• • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager

learning behaviors knowledge resilience

Managerial Effectiveness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

30 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Hypotheses Learning behaviors. The learning capabilities that we adopted for use in our model were self-development, perspective taking, and cultural adaptability. In introducing learning capabilities and skills into the model we wanted to understand if the learning behaviors associated with experiential or action learning would interact with global complexity to predict managerial effectiveness. To the extent that they did, we wanted to explore how people develop these learning skills. Were learning skills related to personality traits such as emotional stability (neuroticism) and openness to experience? Was the ability to learn related to personality, or did adult experiences of cultural heterogeneity and early life experiences with diverse cultures better account for such an ability? Could managers acquire these learning behaviors? To the extent that learning skills proved to be associated with effectiveness in the global role, and to the extent that learning skills could be understood as trait based or experience based,

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

•

we cast the process of developing individuals for global managerial responsibilities as either a selection issue, a development issue, or both. Self-development. Self-development describes a set of behaviors people would exhibit were they to take responsibility for their own development. It is meant to exemplify a person who adopts an active rather than passive stance in regard to his or her own development. Behaviors that typify this kind of learning orientation include a demonstrated awareness of one’s own strengths and weaknesses, openness to feedback about one’s actions, and eagerness to engage in new experiences. In the U.S. practitioner-oriented literature (for example, Dalton & Hollenbeck, 1996; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988), scholars have considered self-awareness and personal development key competencies for managerial effectiveness. Individuals who possess these competencies are presumed to have developed into better managers and leaders because these self-development behaviors have allowed them to become more skilled (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Little empirical research exists to back up these presumptions and suppositions. Instead, the beliefs about the importance of self-development rely on a value set taken from the traditions of the psychotherapy literature—self-awareness as the first step in a behavior-change process (Freud, 1960)—and the goal setting and knowledge-of-results literature (for example, Locke & Latham, 1984). An American and European literary and philosophical tradition that holds selfknowledge as a valued human trait also plays a part. On their measure of learning agility, Lombardo and Eichinger (1994) demonstrated a partial conceptual overlap with the self-development construct we have presented in our model. Dalton and Swigert (1999) reported modest relationships between the learning versatility construct and the learning behaviors necessary to engage in workplace learning, but found no significant relationship between boss and peer ratings of potential effectiveness and self-reported ratings of learning versatility. Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) investigated the relationship of learning skills to international effectiveness. They constructed six scales to measure the ability to learn from experience: (1) seeks opportunities to learn, (2) seeks feedback, (3) uses feedback, (4) is open to 31

criticism, (5) is flexible, and (6) is cross-culturally adventurous. The first four of these scales overlap with the content of our self-development construct. Spreitzer et al. reported the relationship between a boss’s rating of his or her direct reports on these scales and the boss’s rating of the

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

likelihood that these same direct reports would be successful in an international assignment. In our study, two of the scales that we included in the self-development construct, seeks opportunities to learn and is open to criticism, were modestly related to boss ratings of success on international assignments. However, the independent and dependent variables in this research were both rated by the boss, so same-source bias clouds our interpretation of the results. On the Benchmarks® developmental instrument (Lombardo & McCauley, 1988), the scale self-awareness includes items about a person’s willingness to seek and attend to feedback from others. This measure demonstrated a significant relationship to boss ratings of promotability and to longitudinal measures of organizational progress but not to independent assessments of promotability or effectiveness evaluations. We were unaware of any other studies that have tested the relationship of selfdevelopment skills to managerial effectiveness, particularly for managers with international responsibilities. HYPOTHESIS 3.1: Self-development will share significant variance with all effectiveness criteria for managers in the low-global-context group. This hypothesis was tentative. It may hold only to the extent that the manager was working in a culture where active attention to one’s self and one’s career growth is considered appropriate. (Our data did not allow us to entertain this perspective.) For example, some cultures (Japanese or Middle Eastern, for example) consider seeking feedback poor form. Managers in these cultures wait to receive assignments and do not seek them out (Dalton, 1998). Some cultures can view self-development strategies as inappropriate because they represent undue attention to the individual. This is characteristic of cultures in which the self is considered an interdependent rather than an independent construct (Cross, 1995). Schwartz’s concept of work centrality suggested that in some cultures one’s work experience is secondary to the totality of one’s life experience (1999). An undue focus on attaining skills to advance one’s career might in such cultures run counter to norms and expectations. Nonetheless, it is important to address the relationship of self-development to managerial effectiveness because much of executive development in the United States is based on the notion of self-development. This kind of assumption causes problems when U.S.-based leadershipdevelopment professionals try to introduce these concepts to international organizations. Perspective taking. The set of skills and behaviors defined as perspective taking describe a person who is able to listen well; is able to consider multiple points of view, multiple possible solutions, and multiple perspectives; and is able to entertain empathy toward another person’s

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

point of view. Perspective taking can perhaps be seen as what Gardner (1983) has called one of the “personal intelligences.” Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 32 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Gardner (1983) wrote of six basic intelligences: (1) linguistic, (2) musical, (3) logicalmathematical, (4) spatial, (5) bodily-kinesthetic, and (6) personal. The area of personal intelligence includes self-knowledge (intrapersonal) and knowledge of other people (interpersonal). He considered these personal intelligences as different from the other five. In his view, intrapersonal intelligence represents access to one’s own emotional life. Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to notice and make distinctions among other individuals, particularly among their moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. Unlike the other intelligences, however, “the varieties of personal intelligence prove much more distinctive, less comparable, perhaps even unknowable to someone from an alien society. . . . (T)he ‘natural course’ of the personal intelligence is more attenuated than that of other forms, inasmuch as the particular symbolic and interpretive systems of each culture soon come to impose a decisive coloring on these latter forms of information processing” (p. 240). Gardner’s view affected our work in that when we discuss perspective taking (and further, when later in this report we discuss cultural adaptability) we are dealing with the highest manifestation of these intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences. Ideally an effective global manager can rise above his or her own cultural understanding of self and others, translating his or her intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence capacity into the symbol system of another culture. Perspective taking is the ability to transform one’s meaning structures; in other words, individuals make sense of what they know within a network of values, beliefs, attitudes, and past experiences, interpreting what happens to them through this cultural framework. When they (managers, in this case) work with individuals from other cultures, they encounter people who behave in ways that are incongruent with their own expectations of behavior. If managers interpret and label what others are doing through their own interpersonal framework, they may make incorrect assumptions about others’ motivations and respond incorrectly. If managers are able to take the perspective of others, they can transform their understanding, alleviating the anxiety brought about by encountering and dealing with people who have different value systems. We knew of no empirical work that related the ability to take the perspective of another to international managerial effectiveness. In his counseling work with college students, Perry (1981) described a developmental progression of movement from dualism to contextual relativism—the

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ability to make judgments in a relative context while holding one’s own values constant. In the sojourner literature summarized by Kealy (1989), many researchers were reported to have agreed that empathy, interest in the local culture, flexibility, tolerance, and technical skill predict success (defined as adjustment) in another culture. Our construct perspective taking may capture the concepts of empathy, flexibility, and tolerance. At the theoretical level, Mezirow (1991) wrote of learning through perspective transformation. “We encounter experiences, often in an emotionally charged situation, that fail to fit our expectations and consequently lack meaning for us, or we encounter an anomaly that cannot be given coherence either by learning within existing schemes or by learning new schemes. Illumination comes only through redefinition of the problem. . . . We redefine old ways of understanding” (p. 94). 33

Given our understanding of perspective taking and managerial work in highglobalcomplexity conditions, we designed the following hypotheses: HYPOTHESIS 3.2: Perspective taking will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria managing and leading, interpersonal relationships, success orientation, and contextually adept when the manager’s work is more globally complex. HYPOTHESIS 3.3: Perspective taking will be positively associated with the personality scale openness. HYPOTHESIS 3.4: Perspective taking will be negatively associated with the personality trait neuroticism. Cultural adaptability. Cultural adaptability is defined as a set of behaviors used by a person motivated to understand the influence of culture on behavior and who has the skills to learn about and use cultural differences. More than the capacity to understand a particular culture, it describes a person who is able to work well across multiple cultures. Cultural adaptability may be a special case of perspective taking. Cultural adaptability may also encompass the cultural empathy construct identified by Ruben (1976) and Cui and Van Den Berg (1991). The construct of cultural adaptability is an old one, grounded in the training literature of institutions such as the Peace Corps, religious missionary communities, the diplomatic corps, the military, and the business community. Each of these groups has struggled to prepare people to work effectively in other cultures (see, for example, Hannigan, 1990). What differentiates these various constructs and definitions is the role the sojourner plays and the results the group seeks. For example, the struggle for the Peace Corps volunteer is to relocate and to adjust to living in another culture, assuming the role of teacher and helper. The role of the international diplomat is to relocate and to adjust to living and working in another culture in order to represent the interests

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

of the diplomat’s country at a high level of political sensitivity and potential visibility. The role of the military spouse may be to relocate and to adjust to living in an enclave of fellow expatriates. The role of the global manager is different from these roles in that the global manager often does not relocate and so does not face the adjustment so often described in the literature. Rather, the global manager manages as a traveler and/or from a distance and is responsible for activities in multiple countries simultaneously, countries that do not share a common culture. Therefore, we are uncertain that the literature on cultural adjustment will help us understand the skill of cultural adaptability as we define it: the need to know how to adapt quickly in multiple and everchanging cultural contexts in which interactions are sometimes face-to-face and sometimes at a distance. Additionally, much of the existing literature has spoken to the criterion measure of crosscultural adjustment rather than to the criterion measure of work effectiveness. We are interested in the criterion measure of work effectiveness as seen through the eyes of the target manager’s boss. Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 34 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Studies conducted by McCall, Spreitzer, and Mahoney (1994) and Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) have helped us develop our hypothesis related to leadership effectiveness. Their taxonomy of competencies and learning skills, hypothesized to predict success as an international manager, included a learning skill operationalized as adapts to cultural differences. They presented this five-item scale in a subsequent factor analysis of the data as two scales: sensitive to cultural differences and is culturally adventurous. Boss ratings of an individual’s potential to be successful as an international manager and as an expatriate were found to be significantly correlated with boss ratings of an individual’s perceived skill on these two items. (In this research the outcome criteria were related to work effectiveness and not adjustment.) Using this scale as the basis for our own construct of cultural adaptability, we formed the following hypothesis: HYPOTHESIS 3.5: Cultural adaptability will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria managing and leading, interpersonal relationships, knowledge and initiative, success orientation, and contextually adept when the work is more global in scope. Several other studies provide the context for our additional hypotheses. For example, Oberg (1960), a pioneer in studying cross-cultural adjustment, coined the term culture shock. People constantly monitor, interpret, and explain the behavior of themselves and others as part of interacting with one another. When dealing with people from other cultures, the behaviors are the

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

same—but the meaning attributed to the behaviors differs. Culture shock represents the anxiety resulting from trying to process and understand how the world works when cultural significance is unmoored. As Adler stated, “Culture shock is a form of anxiety which results from the misunderstanding of commonly perceived and understood signs of cultural interaction” (1975, p. 13). Adler treated culture shock as a developmental opportunity, an experience that allows a person to first understand the relativity of his or her own value set and then to investigate, reintegrate, and reaffirm a relationship to others. Anderson (1994) divided the cultural-adaptation literature into four major models: (1) the recuperation model, (2) the learning model, (3) the journey model, and (4) the homeostatic model. She suggested that it is a mistake to consider cultural adaptation as different from many other transitional processes, arguing that cultural adaptation is simply an accommodation to change. Using Anderson’s conceptualization of multiple models of cultural adaptability, we would place our view in the camp of the homeostatic model (Grove & Torbiorn, 1985; Torbiorn, 1982), which holds that cultural adaptation requires a change in one’s perceptual frame and behavior in order to adapt to the ambient environment. Cui and Awa’s (1992) construct of intercultural effectiveness encompasses language ability, interpersonal skills, empathy, social interaction, managerial ability, and personality traits. This is similar to our conceptual model, which incorporates life experiences, personality traits, role 35

skills, and capacities as predictors of perceived managerial effectiveness. We note, however, that Cui and Awa’s interest in this work was the sojourner expatriate, not the global manager. Because the global manager is constantly being exposed to cultural differences, sequentially and in parallel, we argue that the ability to manage culture shock will affect the manager’s effectiveness: HYPOTHESIS 3.6: Cultural adaptability will be grounded in one’s ability to manage the anxiety associated with the dissonant messages of the foreign workplace and thus will be highly correlated with emotional stability (neuroticism). Finally, we wanted to address the skill of cultural adaptability itself. If this is a skill highly related to effectiveness as a global manager, then who is most likely to have this skill or to be able to acquire it? How do people acquire cultural adaptability? To answer that question we believed it was important to go beyond the “how” to the “why.” Why might individuals who are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values be better prepared and more motivated to deal with another kind of difference? The psychological theory of mere exposure might partially

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • •

• •

explain this phenomenon. This theory has argued that if individuals have repeated exposure to a stimulus, they will develop an increase in positive affect toward that stimulus (Zajonc, 1968). In 1989 Bornstein explained it further: It is advantageous to human beings to prefer the familiar over the novel. The familiar is safe and unpredictable; the unfamiliar is unsafe and unfamiliar. Bornstein argued that there is an evolutionary reason for this and suggested that it is an adaptive human trait. If this is the case, then individuals exposed to cultural differences early in life or career will have a broader sense of what constitutes the familiar than will individuals who have not been so exposed. They will not experience the cultural “other” as unfamiliar, they will experience less anxiety around what presents itself as different, and they will seek out more international experiences. In contrast to the mere exposure theory’s behavioral explanation for the skill of cultural adaptability, we wished to address the personality trait openness and its posited relationship to cultural adaptability. This trait, as measured by the NEO PI-R, is made up of six facet scales: aesthetics, fantasy, values, feelings, ideas, and actions. Of all the traits measured by the FFM, this construct has proven the most problematic for researchers. Some authors have equated it to intelligence and divergent thinking, others to creativity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the workplace-effectiveness literature, openness has been most often related to effectiveness in training programs, not to job-effectiveness criteria. In our work we hypothesized as follows: HYPOTHESIS 3.7: Openness will be positively associated with the learning scale cultural adaptability. Knowledge. A large body of literature already exists that demonstrates the relationship of job knowledge to managerial effectiveness (see, for example, Kotter, 1982). For that reason we Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 36 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

did not devote a chapter of this report to a review and explanation of this variable in our model. Still, we believed it essential to include business knowledge and international business knowledge in our model. Knowledge seemed to fit best in a chapter that discussed learning. We made the following propositions regarding the relationship of business knowledge and international business knowledge to effectiveness in managerial jobs of high and low global complexity: HYPOTHESIS 3.8: Business knowledge will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation regardless of the global complexity of the job. HYPOTHESIS 3.9: International business knowledge will share significant variance with the

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation when the manager’s work is more globally complex. HYPOTHESIS 3.10: The capability insightful will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation regardless of the global complexity of the job. HYPOTHESIS 3.11: Conscientiousness will be related to bosses’ ratings of business knowledge and international business knowledge. HYPOTHESIS 3.12: Business knowledge and international business knowledge will be positively associated with conscientiousness. Resilience. There was also a substantial body of literature relating the construct of resilience to job satisfaction and job effectiveness (for example, Maddi & Kobassa, 1984). The constructs representing resilience and integrity in our model were placed in this chapter to connect the idea that those individuals most likely to demonstrate learning behaviors will be those who are able to cope with the uncertainties and ambiguities associated with learning. We made the following propositions regarding the relationship of integrity and coping with stress to effectiveness in managerial jobs of high and low global complexity. HYPOTHESIS 3.13: The ability to cope with stress will share significant variance with all effectiveness criteria when the manager’s work is more globally complex. HYPOTHESIS 3.14: Integrity will share significant variance with managing and leading and interpersonal relationships regardless of global complexity. 37

We further hypothesized two relationships between managers’ resilience capabilities and their personality traits. HYPOTHESIS 3.15: The skill of coping will be negatively associated with the trait neuroticism. HYPOTHESIS 3.16: Time management will be positively associated with conscientiousness. Capabilities importance. Finally, we hypothesized about the degree of importance global managers would place on different capabilities within the scope of high global complexity. HYPOTHESIS 3.17: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the capabilities of cultural adaptability and perspective taking than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of self-development equally. HYPOTHESIS 3.18: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the capability of international business knowledge than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of business knowledge equally. HYPOTHESIS 3.19: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the capabilities of time management and coping than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of integrity equally. Results and Discussion Learning. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the three learning scales and the five effectiveness criteria as rated by their bosses and self-reported personality scales for local

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • •

• •

• •

• • • • •

• •

• •

• •

• • •

• •

• • • •

• •

• • •

and global managers (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). Hypothesis 3.5 was supported. Hypothesis 3.1 was not supported. There was partial support for Hypothesis 3.2. Only the learning scale perspective taking was significantly related to criterion measures and only in the high-globalcomplexity condition. Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 38 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Table 3.1 Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Table 3.2 Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Cultural adaptability –.09 .09 .05a –.03 .17 Perspective taking .00a .03 .07a .20 .15 High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Cultural adaptability –.22a .02 –.11a .15 .28 Perspective taking .11a .11 .18a .32 .17 Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20. Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 101 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Cultural adaptability .11 .11 .11 .14 .19 Selfdevelopment .14a .05a .19a .19a .18a Perspective taking .06 .05 .04 .11 .17 High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 80 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Cultural adaptability .15a –.08a .26a .14a .15a Selfdevelopment –.09 .04 .04 .05 –.03 Perspective taking .14a .18a .22a .16a .21a 39

Hypotheses relating the learning behavior scale perspective taking to the personality trait neuroticism were not supported, but as predicted there was a significant and positive relationship between agreeableness and perspective taking. The capability cultural adaptability was related to

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • •

• • • •

• •

• • •

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

neuroticism as predicted in Hypothesis 3.6, but was not related to openness as was hypothesized in 3.7. These results suggest that managers adept at perspective taking are more likely to have the traits of emotional stability and agreeableness—which includes trust in and consideration for others, candor, and sympathy. Knowledge. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the three knowledge scales, the five effectiveness criteria, and personality. The results can be seen in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Hypothesis 3.8 was supported only for the global condition. Hypothesis 3.9 was supported. Hypothesis 3.10 was supported only for the local condition. Business knowledge and international business knowledge are significantly related to the criteria in the high-global-complexity condition but not the low-global-complexity condition. The hypothesized relationship between business knowledge, international business knowledge, and conscientiousness was partially supported for managers working in a low global context and fully supported for managers working in a high global context. Conscientiousness for managers in the high global context was related to the skills business knowledge and international business knowledge. Table 3.3 Knowledge Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 101 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Business knowledge .07 .03 .14a .17a .06 International business knowledge .07 .14 .13 .11 .14 Insightful .07 .001 .19a .24a .12 High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 80 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Business knowledge –.04 –.10 .32a .19a –.02 International business knowledge .11 –.02 .37a .21a .11 Insightful –.009 –.14 .18a .14a –.06 Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20. Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 40 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Table 3.4 Knowledge Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Business knowledge –.13 .16 .01 –.14 .29a

• •

• • •

• •

• • •

• • • •

International business knowledge –.09 .13 .01 –.19 .20a High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Business knowledge –.44 .19 –.04 –.01 .36a International business knowledge –.23 .07 –.05 .00 .34a Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

•

Resilience. The zero-order correlations presented in Table 3.5 address Hypotheses 3.13 and 3.14. They reflect the association between the resilience scales, the five effectiveness criteria as rated by bosses, and personality scales for domestic and global managers. Hypothesis 3.13 was partially supported. Resilience was only associated with bosses’ ratings of knowledge and initiative and success orientation. Hypothesis 3.14 was not supported. The scale coping is related to boss-criterion ratings in both the low- and high-global-complexity condition. Time management, although identified by managers in the high global context as important to their jobs, was not significantly related to any of the effectiveness criteria.

• • •

Table 3.5 Resilience Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

• • • • •

• •

• •

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • •

• •

41

Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 101 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Coping .14 .02 .12 .22 .17 Integrity –.02a –.02a .07 .19 .17 High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 80 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Coping .08a .05a .36a .26a .16a Integrity –.05a .10a .09 .03 –.02 Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

As shown in Table 3.6, Hypothesis 3.15 was supported. Hypothesis 3.16 was not supported. Table 3.6 Resilience Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Coping –.34a .23 .03 .01 .18 High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Coping –.50a .22 .15 .16 .17

• • • •

• • • • • •

• •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Capabilities importance. Both independent sample t-tests and nonparametric Mann– Whitney U analyses were conducted to test for mean differences reported by low- and highglobalcomplexity managers on the level of importance attributed to the eight capabilities. The results are presented in Table 3.7. Hypothesis 3.17 was partially supported; differences were found for cultural adaptability but not perspective taking. Hypothesis 3.18 was supported. Hypothesis 3.19 was partially supported as differences were found for time management but not coping. Managers in high-global-complexity jobs were statistically more likely to endorse the Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager 42 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

capabilities of cultural adaptability, international business knowledge, and time management as extremely important to their current job. The two groups did not differ in the importance they ascribed to the remaining capabilities (self-development, perspective taking, business knowledge, insight, coping, and integrity). Table 3.7 Capabilities Importance Ratings for High- and Low-Global-Complexity Jobs Managerial capabilities Cultural adaptability T = –8.27 p < .001 low = –.48, high = .50 Self-development NS Perspective taking NS Business knowledge NS International business knowledge T = –7.69 p < .001 low = –.46, high = .46 Time management T = –2.05 p < .05 low = –.13, high = .14 Coping NS Integrity NS

CHAPTER 4 Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context In this chapter we turn our focus toward one group of people who we believe have the skills needed to succeed in leadership positions of high global complexity. “Even in this day and age and even with Fortune 500 companies, it is difficult to convince recruiting departments and managers of the benefit of hiring a student with multicultural sensitivity, who is bilingual, who has international exposure and a real knowledge of international business over a person with a (traditional) MBA” (Feldman & Tompson, 1992, p. 345). Such people might be called cosmopolitans. In the following pages we define cosmopolitans, discuss what the literature says about them, and hypothesize about the relationships between cosmopolitanism and other elements of our model. Background Our theoretical description of cosmopolitanism is based on interviews, personal experience, observation, and some data. We intend it to serve as a preliminary description, not as a factual case. A cosmopolitan is not characterized by a particular personality profile, a particular IQ, a

•

• • •

• • • •

specific type of profession, or a specific background. There is no singular life experience that makes one person a cosmopolitan and another person not. The difference is that cosmopolitans have spent large portions of their lives oriented and focused externally to themselves and to their 43

•

home culture. An interest and attention toward other cultures is a common thread among cosmopolitans. Cosmopolitanism has been previously referred to in the literature, but the definition of the variable is much different from our conceptualization. Early in the last century Gale (1919) discussed the necessity of travel and education in creating a cosmopolitan citizen but did not relate those experiences to what one might learn through interaction with foreign cultures. The term cosmopolitan has also been used to describe media usage (McNelly, Rush, & Bishop, 1968), an attitude more accepting of integration (Caditz, 1976), and loyalty to the profession rather than to the employing organization (DeVries, 1971; Goldberg, 1976; Kirschenbaum & Goldberg, 1976; Rotondi, 1977). For the purposes of our research, we viewed cosmopolitanism as describing an individual difference that Kanter defined as “a mindset that finds commonalties across places” (1995, p. 61). Cosmopolitans live in the context of their nation and the world rather than in the context of their local community (Hannerz, 1990; Ratiu, 1983). They not only understand that cultures and places differ, but they are also able to integrate themselves into different cultures in such a way that neither offends the other nor subverts the cosmopolitan’s own cultural orientations.

• • • • • • •

Figure 5 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Experience) Managerial Roles Global Complexity Personality Experience

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Chapter 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

cosmopolitanism cultural heterogeneity organizational cohort homogeneity

Managerial Capabilities Managerial Effectiveness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

44 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Because of their orientation toward others, cosmopolitans can develop skills that help them interact effectively with others different from themselves. They welcome other perspectives. Although they may prefer their own way of doing things, they are not parochial and do not ascribe to the “not invented here” philosophy. They will think about ideas that seem against their own cultural grain. Cosmopolitans are political in that they are aware of the impact of their behavior on others (personally and professionally); however, others may not perceive them as political in that their ability to see a variety of perspectives and integrate culturally different ideas give them the aura of mavericks within an organization. Although there is no direct literature on cosmopolitanism as we have described it here, Ratiu (1983) investigated how international executives learned, examining a group of people very similar to our definition. He found that the “internationals” learned differently from those who were not described as internationals. The critical difference in learning styles was that internationals used stereotypes provisionally, dealt with the stress of interacting with different others by acknowledging it, and tended to be empirical in their understanding of other cultures in that they questioned rather than ascribed motivations. Other managers tended to believe that stereotypes were fairly enduring, did not acknowledge stress, and leaned toward ascribing motivations to behaviors. Ratiu did not investigate how these so-called internationals had acquired their skills. He stated that many of them had childhood experiences that had facilitated the development of these skills, but he did not explicitly identify which experiences were critical to developing them. Although they did not talk directly about internationals, Kets de Vries and Mead (1992) described what they thought was critical in the development of the global manager. They discussed in detail what types of experiences good global managers would need to have and wrote about the specific types of experiences they expected them as having had in developing such skills. They proposed that in addition to standard technical competence and business experience, global managers would need to be able to interact effectively with people who were different. One way this skill could be learned, they suggested, was through a number of professional development factors including cultural diversity in family, early international experience, bilingualism, self-confidence, hardiness, envisioning, study in another culture, and study in an international environment. Kets de Vries and Mead went on to say that early socialization into cross-cultural environments might be an important factor in the ability to work cross-culturally as an adult. They wrote:

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

“Given the impact of childhood socialization on adult development, it is to be expected that early exposure is a determining factor in how successful the individual will be in dealing with cultural adaptability later in life” (1992, p. 193). Further, they wrote that “the strongest influences on both leadership qualities and the ability to adapt culturally stem from childhood background and psychological development. . . . Following our framework, it can be said that in the development of a global leader ideally it helps to have a childhood background characterized by cultural diversity, one aspect being early international experience” (p. 200). In 1999 Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy wrote a book that examined the lives of Richard Branson, Percy Barnevik, and David Simon, three successful global leaders. While examining the 45

technical competence and business savvy of these leaders, the authors also discussed their life experiences and their ability to work with others. What the authors found was that all three had spent time in their youths in situations that arguably would have increased their competence in interacting effectively with people possessing very different perspectives, especially a culturally different perspective. These three leaders worked across differences as part of their early life experiences and had developed a hardiness that helped them withstand the effort working across differences demanded. In addition to skills developed from specific life events, the literature has suggested a variety of attributes relevant to the development of a cosmopolitan. From a developmental perspective, being able to take another’s perspective and “empathic accuracy” are critical to the ability to deal with different others (Davis & Kraus, 1997). Relational, cross-cultural, and interpersonal abilities are important to success in international environments (Pucik & Saba, 1998), as are cognitive complexity, emotional energy, and psychological maturity (Wills & Barham, 1994). Cosmopolitans, then, can be viewed as developing through experience and the practice of specific skills. The development of these skills can begin in childhood or adulthood. A childhood beginning allows more time for practicing those skills. It is possible that individuals can develop cosmopolitan skills outside of work as an adult through cultural exposure (marrying into a culturally different family, for example, or through friendships) and interest (travel, for example, or formal educational opportunities such as foreign language study). Cosmopolitans are not cultural chameleons. They can’t speak every language, do not know every point of etiquette in every culture, can’t tell you how to tip in every town, and do not know how to get a cab on the street in every place they visit. Although to others their cultural flexibility

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

and adaptability may appear effortless, their balancing of varied cultural perspectives and their empathy for others different from themselves exerts a high price and is more difficult than interacting with people from what they would call their own culture. A cosmopolitan’s skill and orientation toward cultural adaptability is an interpersonal skill that helps them interact with others different from themselves, but it is worth noting that such a skill does not make such an individual better at the technical aspects of leadership. Hypotheses As local economies become increasingly globally oriented, more and more managerial positions require that people work or interact with others from different cultures (Aycan, 1997; Tung, 1997, 1998). These globally oriented positions differ widely in their complexity. Some require people to manage or interact with others across multiple time zones and who speak a variety of languages. Other positions require people to live and work in foreign environments for short assignments or for longer periods of time. Technical improvements in communication and travel have made it increasingly easy for companies to assemble teams of people who reside and work in different places, who speak different languages, and who carry with them different values and belief systems. It has been suggested that people who are able to do work across cultures or internationally are more likely to be successful in a global economy (Bennett, 1989). We believe that those Chapter 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context 46 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

people we call cosmopolitans have the orientations and skills arising from life experiences that help them interact effectively with others different from themselves and, therefore, to be more successful global leaders. To this end we operationalized cosmopolitanism as “early life” and “adult life” experience. Early life experience includes the number of languages spoken before age 13 and the number of countries in which the individual was educated. Experience gained later in life includes the number of countries in which the individual has lived, the number of languages spoken, and expatriate experience. HYPOTHESIS 4.1: Cosmopolitanism will be positively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness. HYPOTHESIS 4.2: Individuals who spoke/speak more languages in early life and adult life, who have lived in more countries, and who were educated in more countries will have higher scores on knowledge and initiative, success orientation, and contextually adept than individuals who have not had these experiences, regardless of the global complexity of their current jobs. Given our description of cosmopolitanism and the list of factors that may contribute to the

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • •

• • •

• • • •

development of cosmopolitanism, how does cosmopolitanism relate to the variables we are examining in our model of managerial effectiveness? We anticipated a few specific relationships. It follows that the predisposition to be fascinated by the values and customs of others (openness) should be related to cosmopolitanism. HYPOTHESIS 4.3: Cosmopolitanism will be positively related to the personality trait openness. HYPOTHESIS 4.4: Managers who speak multiple languages and who have lived in multiple countries will have higher scores on the personality trait openness. We also proposed a link between experience and capabilities. (For specifics on the capabilities and effectiveness turn to Chapter 3.) HYPOTHESIS 4.5: Cosmopolitanism will be positively related to self-ratings of the capabilities of perspective taking, cultural adaptability, and international business knowledge. HYPOTHESIS 4.6: Number of languages spoken before the age of 13 and number of countries educated in will each be positively associated with the capabilities of perspective taking, cultural adaptability, and international business knowledge. 47

HYPOTHESIS 4.7: Experience as an expatriate will be positively related to international business knowledge and cultural adaptability. Results and Discussion For purposes of this report, cosmopolitanism was operationalized in two ways. Both approaches took into account early and later life experience. They differed, however, in the way they related to the model. We first operationalized cosmopolitanism as a continuous variable (the linear addition of number of languages currently spoken, number of countries lived in, number of languages spoken before age 13, and number of countries educated in) because we believed that a combination of experiences contribute to the development of cosmopolitanism. We did not hypothesize that job complexity would affect the relationships between cosmopolitanism and any of the other variables in the model. Hypotheses 4.1, 4.4, and 4.6 were examined using an additive variable—cosmopolitanism. Results indicated that an individual’s level of cosmopolitanism was negatively related to the bosses’ ratings of internal relationships (r = –.182, p < .015), but was not related to bosses’ ratings of other criterion variables (Hypothesis 4.1). These results suggested that people with higher cosmopolitanism scores were at a disadvantage with their bosses because their bosses perceived them as being less proficient at internal relationships than those with lower cosmopolitanism scores. Results for hypotheses related to early and adult life experience (4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7) are shown in Tables 4.1–4.3. In Table 4.1 zero-order correlations between experience variables and effectiveness criteria are presented. Hypothesis 4.2 was not supported. In fact, for managers in

•

•

the high global condition, number of countries educated in and number of languages spoken as a child and as an adult were negatively correlated with the criterion measures interpersonal relationships and contextually adept. Number of countries educated in was also negatively correlated with interpersonal relationships for managers in domestic jobs. For the localboss ratings, time in role was negatively correlated with interpersonal relationships. Hypothesis 4.3 was not supported (see Table 4.2). Results indicated that cosmopolitanism was not correlated with openness (r = .067, p < .332). This result suggested that openness as measured in the NEO PI-R was not necessarily related to the type of past international experience captured by the cosmopolitanism variable. Hypothesis 4.4, which predicted an association between adult life experience and the trait openness, was also not supported. As seen in Table 4.3, Hypothesis 4.5 was supported. Results indicate that cosmopolitanism is positively correlated with international business knowledge (r = .481, p < .001) and cultural adaptability (r = .388, p < .001). This result suggested that international business knowledge and cultural adaptability were related to the type of past international experience captured by the cosmopolitanism variable and is useful with regard to specific competency areas that individuals can develop.

• • • •

Table 4.1 Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Boss Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • •

• •

• • • • •

• • •

• • • • •

• • •

• •

• •

•

Chapter 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context 48 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 101 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Languages spoken between ages 1–13 .00 –.05 –.02a –.03a .05a Languages spoken as adult .07 –.04 .10a .09a .07a Number of countries lived in –.02 –.04 –.02a –.03a –.04a Number of countries educated in –.01 –.08 .03a .10a .11a Years of formal education –.13 –.09 –.01 –.05 –.05 Time in role –.19 –.21 –.11 –.06 –.12 Tenure –.03 .02 –.11 –.04 .04 Expatriate a a a a a High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 80 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Languages spoken between ages 1–13 –.14 –.30 .07a .03a –.05a Languages spoken as adult –.10 –.21 .14a –.06a .00a Number of countries lived in –.08 –.09 .04a .08a –.08a

• •

• •

• • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • •

• •

• • • •

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • •

•

Number of countries educated in –.18 –.24 –.03a –.05a –.25a Years of formal education .10 –.01 .02 .17 –.05 Time in role .13 –.03 .17 .06 .13 Tenure .09 .09 .11 .09 .07 Expatriate a a a a a Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20. 49

Table 4.2 Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

Low global context n = 101 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Languages spoken between ages 1–13 .01 –.02 .08a –.17 –.11 Number of countries lived in –.10 .08 .11a –.17 .11 Expatriate .10 –.01 .03 .23 –.17 High global context n = 80 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious Languages spoken between ages 1–13 .00 .10 .02a .00 .05 Number of countries lived in –.07 –.08 –.04a .00 .08 Expatriate .10 –.01 .03 .23 –.17 Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Hypothesis 4.6 was partially supported. Number of countries educated in was positively correlated with the capabilities of cultural adaptability and international business knowledge for all managers. Number of languages spoken between ages 1–13 was only associated with cultural adaptability and international business knowledge for managers working in a high global context. Hypothesis 4.7 was supported for high-global-context managers and partially supported for low-global-context managers. In other words, for managers in either context, experience as an expatriate was associated with the skill of cultural adaptability. It was not related to international business knowledge for low-global-context managers but was for high-global-context managers. Another interesting outcome is that bosses perceived people with high cosmopolitanism scores as being less proficient with internal relationships. This is particularly interesting given the relationship between cultural adaptability and bosses’ positive evaluation of the managers. This result may suggest that bosses are uncomfortable with people with a cosmopolitan orientation,

•

•

even though it is related to precisely the competencies considered necessary for success in a globally complex job.

• • • •

Table 4.3 Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Selected Capabilities for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

• •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

Chapter 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context 50 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Low global context International n = 101 Perspective taking Cultural adaptability business knowledge Languages spoken between ages 1–13 a a a Expatriate –.02 –.27a .03a High global context International n = 80 Perspective taking Cultural adaptability business knowledge Languages spoken between ages 1–13 a a a Number of countries lived in a a a Expatriate .07 –.21a –.28a Note: a indicates hypothesized relationships. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20. The negative relationship between expatriate experience and cultural adaptability is the result of coding.

CHAPTER 5 Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness Demographic changes all over the world have intensified the cultural diversity of today’s labor force. Concurrently, a shift has occurred toward more complex jobs and roles in multinational corporations. The increased complexity of roles and increased interactions among diverse people has yielded practical concerns regarding the influence of diversity on individual and group effectiveness. Whether or not perceived similarity among group members affects workgroups’ outcomes is a target of a considerable amount of research. The relative distance between members who are perceived to be in-group members (“one of us”) versus those who are perceived as outsiders (“one of them”) has been shown to have both adverse and positive consequences. But what influence does organizational diversity exert upon the perceptions of success at domestic and global work? This chapter focuses on how experience with diversity influences social behavior in global organizations and in the perceptions of a manager’s effectiveness. We present several theoretical propositions that explain how individuals relate to those who are different from and similar to themselves. We also explore how working with heterogeneous workgroups affects longterm success and the impact of the manager’s “fit” in culturally diverse organizations. 51

Background We have used diversity to refer to situations in which managers are not alike with respect to some attribute(s). At an individual/interpersonal level, one can view diversity in several ways.

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

One way is through one’s own ethnocentrism (the tendency to judge other cultures by one’s own standards). To eliminate ethnocentrism, one must reject one’s own culture—a very rare occurrence even for individuals who spend a considerable amount of time outside of their native country (Triandis, 1995). Another view of diversity is based on beliefs of perceived similarity. On one hand, in a homogeneous environment an individual has a very narrow range of attributes that define who comprises the in-group. On the other hand, in a heterogeneous environment the range of attributes that distinguish in-group members from outsiders is much larger. Many theorists and researchers have addressed the construction of the self in relationship to the group. In the context of global organizations, one might assume that individuals would have at least three reference groups (a group to which people refer when making evaluations about themselves and their behavior): one belonging to their native culture, one belonging to the culture with which they come in contact (Ferdman, 1995), and one belonging to the organizational culture. LaFrombosie, Coleman, and Gerton (1993), in a review of the literature, identified five types of models used to describe psychological processes, social experiences, and general obstacles in the context of biculturalism, and more models exist (see, for example, Cox, 1993). But those studies have not addressed the implications of one’s identity on effectiveness, most particularly when the context of that effectiveness is a global organization. Researchers have frequently used the social identity and social categorization process, the similarity-attraction paradigm, informational and decision-making theories, and the degree of distinctiveness (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) to explain the effects of diversity on organizational effectiveness. Social identity and social categorization refer to the process whereby people derive at least part of their identity from the social categories to which they belong, using those categories to categorize others as similar or different from themselves. Arbitrarily categorizing people based on perceived differences can lead to trust and cooperation conflicts between in- and outgroup members (Brewer, 1979, 1995). The similarity-attraction paradigm has suggested that similarity between people produces positive effects by validating the perceiver’s worldview. “Presumably, similarity in demographics leads to an inference or assumption about similarity in values, beliefs, and attitudes. . . . Furthermore, a presumed knowledge of the other individual’s values, beliefs, and attitudes leads to a sense of predictability, comfort, and confidence regarding the other individual’s likely behavior in the future” (Tsui, Xin, & Egan, 1995, p. 108). Some research has shown demographic similarity

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

to be related to more frequent communication and friendship ties (Lincoln & Miller, 1979), frequency of technical communication (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), and social integration (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Bartette, 1989). In other words, research has supported the belief that workplace homogeneity makes communication and relationships easier. Chapter 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness 52 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Informational and decision-making theories (Tziner & Eden, 1985) have suggested that group heterogeneity can have a positive impact through the increase in the skills, abilities, information, and knowledge that diversity brings to the group. When the task or work can benefit from multiple perspectives and diversified knowledge, diversity can have a positive impact. Lastly, the degree-of-distinctiveness theory has suggested that the more distinctive an individual is, the more self-aware he or she will become. That individual’s self-awareness in turn leads him or her to compare his or her behavior to the norms of the group. According to Thomas, Ravlin, and Wallace (1996), a large cultural difference could result in unsuccessful adaptation or decreased effectiveness due to the perceived effort required just to fit in with the group. The depth and breadth of the literature on the influence of diversity has directed our attention toward two particular aspects: the influence of experience working in heterogeneous work groups and the influence of organizational demography on effectiveness. Phrased another way, we wanted to know if experience in managing a diverse workgroup in a domestic role increases the likelihood that an individual will be effective in a global role. We also wanted to know if experience, as part of a demographic cohort, impacts perceptions of a manager’s effectiveness. Hypotheses Influence of experience working in heterogeneous workgroups. It can be argued that managers who have had positive experiences managing domestic heterogeneous workgroups (workgroups composed of members who are different in demographic and cultural characteristics) could also be effective in an international assignment. We have indicated that relationship on our conceptual model (see Figure 5, p. 43). Experience working with diverse workgroups may indeed become the foundation for developing interpersonal skills that are effective and appropriate for working across cultural and geographic boundaries. The literature has suggested that skills which are helpful in interacting with people from other cultures can be learned by working with heterogeneous groups (Cox & Beale, 1997; Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Sessa & Jackson, 1995). Scholars have argued that demographically diverse workgroups offer different perspectives, attitudes, and abilities: “Differences in

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

experiences and perspectives lead team members to approach problems and decisions drawing on different information, from different angles, and with different attitudes. Therefore teams composed of people with diverse backgrounds and characteristics are expected to produce a wider variety of ideas, alternatives, and solutions—and thus perform better—than teams composed of people who are similar in terms of demographic characteristics” (Sessa & Jackson, 1995, p. 140). Research has also supported the link between group diversity and a positive impact on group effectiveness (Sessa & Jackson, 1995). Short-term outcomes of working with heterogeneous groups include the raising of self-awareness and increased social familiarity (Jackson et al., 1995). The study of how a manager’s previous work history with heterogeneous workgroups affects the development of interpersonal skills and the capacities required in a global role is new. But because we assumed that working with a heterogeneous workgroup leads to the development 53

of these skills, two conclusions were possible: (1) domestic or local managers who excel in this area may be particularly well suited for global leadership assignments, and (2) working with heterogeneous groups can be used for development of skills that impact effectiveness. Therefore, HYPOTHESIS 5.1: When the work is more globally complex, managers with a history of working in heterogeneous workgroups in their most recent domestic job will have higher scores on all effectiveness criteria than will their counterparts without this history. There was substantial evidence, however, that suggested that increased diversity in workgroups has negative effects on the ability of the group to function effectively over time (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Diverse groups are more likely to have difficulty integrating, communicating, and resolving conflict. As the work becomes more global (that is, as time, geography, and cultural distance expand), maintaining workgroup cohesiveness becomes even more complex. The influence of organizational cohort homogeneity. In addition to the impact of a manager’s work history with heterogeneous workgroups, we believed the manager’s similarity to colleagues was an important factor in trying to understand perceptions of success. Exploration of the relationship of demographic variables and workers’ attitudes has had a long tradition in industrial and organizational psychology, social psychology, and sociology. Very few studies have examined how variations in multiple demographic variables affect work effectiveness, in particular the effectiveness of managers working in global organizations. Organizational demography (Pfeffer, 1981, 1983) has treated demographic variables as a

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

compositional property of the group or unit by measuring the variance in demography within the unit and relating this unit property to unit outcomes.1 That compositional component has distinguished it from other demographic approaches. Two main contributions have typically characterized organizational demography research: compositional variables (such as relative homogeneity or heterogeneity) and methodological ease (Lawrence, 1997). Researchers have mapped most often the relationship between demographic variables and organizational outcomes. The relationship between the demographic predictor and the outcome has been reflected in the literature as a varied assortment of theoretical explanations. Relational demographers have treated demography as a group-level variable but have also analyzed it at the individual level (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). “In these studies, the relative similarity or dissimilarity of specific demographic attributes of group members is related to individuals’ attitudes or behaviors” (Thomas, Ravlin, & Wallace, 1996, p. 3). Chapter 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness 1 In organizational demography, there are two ways to define the unit of analysis: individual-level similarity or dissimilarity, and unit level. The individual measure compares all members of the group to each other so that each individual receives a score. At the unit level, the whole group gets a score. 54 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Lawrence (1997) characterized five defining boundaries of organizational demography: (1) the demographic unit selected for the study, (2) the attributes of the demographic unit, (3) the domain in which the attributes are studied, (4) the measures of the attributes, and (5) the mechanism by which the attributes predict outcomes. The demographic unit can range from small (such as an individual) to large (such as an industry). The unit is the entity to which theoretical generalizations are made. Attributes of the demographic unit are the characteristics used to depict the subject matter under study (such as organizational tenure). The domain is the context in which a demographic unit is studied. The domain’s level of analysis is higher than or equal to the demographic unit under study. Domains also range in size from dyads or groups to organizational populations or industries. Measures of the attribute that depict the demographic unit or domain are either simple (such as the organizational tenure of an individual in a group) or compositional (such as the Euclidean distance of group members), depending on the level of analysis of the attribute.2 The final characteristic of organizational demography, the mechanism, refers to the process by which the attributes predict outcomes. The mechanism may be either indirect or direct. Explanations for the effects of demography on organizational outcomes have followed

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

several avenues, including social identity and social categorization process (Tajifel, 1974; Tajifel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1985, 1987), the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), and the degree of distinctiveness (Mullen, 1983, 1987; Thomas, Ravlin, & Wallace, 1996). Relevant variables for assessing demographic effects in international or global organizations have included the following: (1) the number of years with the company, (2) national culture, (3) educational background, (4) gender, (5) race, and (6) age. Although all of these demographic attributes are important, some may be more salient than others when it comes to understanding individuals’ effectiveness or fit in the organization. Age, race, and gender, for example, are easily observable; tenure, education, or field of study are not. Following are highlights from past research and our thoughts on the relative importance of each demographic attribute. Number of years with company. Most of the organizational demography studies have continued to use Pfeffer’s index, the tenure or length-of-service distribution in an organization or its top-management team, as the demographic variable of primary interest.3 Effectiveness measures examined across these studies have varied. They have included turnover, innovation, diversification, and adaptiveness (Carroll & Harrison, 1998; Tsui, Egan, & Xin, 1995). A preponderance of evidence has shown a positive relationship between organizational tenure and increased group effectiveness. Arguments for this positive relationship have been consistent with social categorization and similarity-attraction theories (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). According to Tsui and O’Reilly (1989), the cause of the relational demographic effects are 2 The

Euclidean distance measure computationally is the square root of the individual’s mean squared distance from the other members in the group on any demographic variable. 3 The coefficient of variation in tenure has also become the most common measure of length-of-service heterogeneity. The measure is calculated as the standard deviation of tenure over the mean of tenure. 55

often attributed to a combination of high-level attraction based on similar experiences, attitudes, and values (see Byrne, 1971; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1996), and strong communication among the interacting members (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1979). As tenure in organizations increases, employees gain a better understanding of policies and procedures. In general, tenure acts as an indicator of organizational experiences (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). It may be that executives who are similar in their length of service to the organization have gained a better understanding of the organization through their shared experiences resulting in overall effectiveness. Based on this view, our resulting hypothesis was HYPOTHESIS 5.2: As the similarity of an individual’s organizational tenure to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. National culture. An increase in research on the impact of multicultural differences in

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

organizational behavior has accompanied the rising number of companies expanding into international markets. Many of the studies have focused on cultural differences in terms of values, norms, and assumptions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 1995). According to Triandis, Kurowski, and Gelfand (1994), to the extent that cultures share objective elements (such as language, religion, political systems, or economic systems) or subjective ones (values, attitudes, beliefs, norms, roles), they are considered similar. Triandis (1995) further concluded that different cultural groups have a higher chance of unification if they (a) share goals and equal status, (b) have a shared membership, (c) maintain frequent contact and a shared network, and (d) are encouraged by the organization to view each other in a positive light. The more a person’s national culture identity is distinct from others in the workgroup, the more difficult it will be for the members of the workgroup to perceive each other as similar. One might conclude that one of the most important factors in understanding diversity in international organizations is how national culture affects social behavior. A large cultural distance may in fact make individuals more self-aware, resulting in their having difficulty adjusting and being accepted by the workgroup. Thus: HYPOTHESIS 5.3: As the similarity of an individual’s national culture to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. Educational background. Educational achievement can be proxy for status and power within organizations. In the United States, for example, it is often assumed that seniorlevel people have more education than their direct reports. People believed to have different levels of education are often assumed to differ in their knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is not uncommon to find people who have similar educational backgrounds performing similar tasks within organizations. Chapter 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness 56 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Unlike the demographic attributes discussed previously, however, the literature has reported that increased diversity in educational background improves effectiveness (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and in some cases communication (Glick, Miller, & Huber, 1993; Jenn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1997). Therefore, HYPOTHESIS 5.4: As the dissimilarity of an individual’s educational attainment (college degree, for example) to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. Gender and race. There was enough support in the literature to treat gender and race effects separately. In the organizational demography literature, however, the two attributes often were examined together. Likewise, we have introduced them together in this report. Gender and racial distinctiveness cannot be suppressed. The lack of representation of women and people of color in senior-level managerial positions has not gone unnoticed. For

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

•

those who historically have been denied managerial opportunities and who have lacked clear role models from which to learn, two additional struggles were reported to have precedence. According to Ruderman and Hughes-James (1998), managing multiple identities and fitting in are particularly difficult for women and people of color as they develop their self-identities as leaders. Some research has suggested that for white women there is a limited range of acceptable behavior that is more stereotypically masculine than feminine (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1992). Because of a lack of role models or coaches, people of color have to identify those acceptable behaviors themselves (Ruderman & Hughes-James, 1998). Specific to the organizational demography literature, differences in gender and race were shown to relate negatively to psychological commitment and intent to stay, and positively to frequency in absence (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Konrad, Winter, and Gutek (1992) found that minority women were more likely to experience dissatisfaction and organizational isolation. In a more recent study, Tsui and Egan (1994) found no differences in the level of direct reports’ citizenship behaviors when they were rated by a boss of the same race. White supervisors rated nonwhite subordinates lower than white subordinates, and white subordinates were rated highest by nonwhite supervisors. To add to the confusion of the influence of diversity on workgroups, Wharton and Baron (1987), in an investigation of the effects of occupational gender desegregation of men, found that men in mixed-gender work settings reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction and a higher level of depression than men in either female- or male-dominated work settings. Further, they found that working among mixed-gender groups may take on different meanings for men than for women. Gender self-categorization for men appeared to be more important (for men, being male is more important than being female is for women), and gender was a symbolic representation of certain occupations—such as senior management—in organizations (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Because it is likely that an international organization will have a greater distribution of diversity in its workforce, we propose the following: 57

HYPOTHESIS 5.5: As the similarity of an individual’s gender to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. HYPOTHESIS 5.6: As the similarity of an individual’s race to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. Age. Similarly aged employees often have common experiences outside of work, which have tended to produce employees who share similar attitudes, beliefs, and interests inside and outside of the organization (Rhodes, 1983; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). According to Zenger and

•

• • •

Lawrence, “the youngest employees tend to be unmarried, and slightly older employees may be newly married with young children. Middle-aged employees may be divorced and have parents who need special care, and older employees tend to look forward to quiet lives without dependents and with grandchildren” (p. 365). Studies have shown a positive relationship between age and job satisfaction (Hunt & Saul, 1975; Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983), age and job involvement (Saal, 1978), age and commitment (Morris & Sherman, 1981), and age, tenure, and frequency of technical communication (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). Tsui, Egan, and Xin (1995) pointed out that many organizational demography studies have included age and tenure as independent variables to test Pfeffer’s (1983) tenure demography theory (see, for example, Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Murry, 1989; Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Wagner, Pfeffer, & O’Reilly, 1984; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). Pfeffer argued that age and tenure distributions are not perfectly correlated and that they should be kept distinct. In international organizations it may be that age similarity produces similarity in general attitudes about work that result in overall effectiveness. Therefore, HYPOTHESIS 5.7: As the similarity of an individual’s age to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. Results and Discussion The Euclidean distance formula was used to measure each individual’s dissimilarity from the group on attributes, age, sex, race, country of current residence, and native country (see Jackson et al., 1991). The Euclidian distance provides a measure of the individual’s dissimilarity from the group on each attribute individually, with possible scores for each attribute ranging from 0 (no difference from the group) to 1 (different from every member of the group). Zeroorder correlations were conducted between demographic variables and effectiveness criteria. The results of the influence of experience working in heterogeneous workgroups can be seen in Table 5.1. Hypothesis 5.1 was not supported.

• • • •

Table 5.1 Heterogeneity of Group in Most Recent Domestic Job Correlated with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low and High Global Contexts

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

•

• •

• • • • • • • •

Chapter 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness 58 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Low global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually n = 93 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Sex .15 .15 .08 .01 .17 Residence .03 .03 .02 –.01 .02 Race –.25 –.20 –.14 –.09 –.10 Native country –.02 .06 .06 .01 .09 Age –.04 –.08 .05 .05 .04 High global Managing Knowledge context and Interpersonal and Success Contextually

• • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • •

• • • • •

n = 68 leading relationships initiative orientation adept Sex –.14 –.03 –.25 –.26 –.12 Residence .12 .05 .10 .11 .19 Race .07 .14 –.06 .04 .07 Native country .14 .22 .02 .23 .19 Age .07 .03 –.04 .00 –.05 Note: All global relationships were hypothesized to be significant. Bold items are significant at the .05 level or greater and when the correlation is at a magnitude of at least .20.

Previous experience working with diverse groups does not enhance managerial effectiveness as expected. There is in fact a negative relationship between boss effectiveness rating and experience managing people of a different gender in the high global condition. Because 89% of our sample was male, it is most likely females who, on the basis of gender, reported high scores on difference from others in the former workgroup. Although men and women did not receive significantly different criterion scores from bosses, there was a trend for bosses to give lower scores to women than to men. It is unclear whether this result means that if a manager has experience working with people of the opposite sex that manager is less likely to be effective in a global role, or that women are more likely to receive low scores from their bosses than are men when the work is global in scope. The same line of thought holds for the significant finding regarding race for local managers. The Euclidean distance measure was also used to test the influence of organizational cohort homogeneity on perceptions of effectiveness. For this analysis, however, individuals’ demographic similarity with their cohort group (company) was examined within each participating organization. Because we framed our hypotheses in terms of similarity, we expected to find negative correlations. The results are displayed in Tables 5.2–5.5. 59

As shown in Table 5.2 less than half of the demographic variables were negatively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness. We did find a modest but statistically significant association between an increase in years of education distance and bosses’ ratings of individuals’ contextual adeptness and managing and leading. In other words, managers who are different from their cohort in terms of their education were perceived to be more effective on two of the five criterion measures. Another statistically significant association was found among the cohort in company A’s native country distance and success orientation. These results suggested that being dissimilar from others in terms of education and nationality may positively affect perceptions of effectiveness. Table 5.2 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company A

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

Managing Knowledge and Interpersonal and Success Contextually leading relationships initiative orientation adept Age distance –.15 –.15 –.10 –.18 .07 Native country distance .17 .19 .11 .25 .09 Years with company distance –.17 .03 –.03 –.03 –.12 Years of education distance .22 .20 .12 .13 .25 Race distance .09 .10 –.00 .15 .01 Sex distance .07 .05 .01 –.03 .05 Note. Bold correlations are significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). Managers N = 88.

•

For the executive cohort in company B (Table 5.3), over half of the demographic variables were negatively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness even though these relationships were not statistically significant. We did find a modest association between an increase in years with the company distance and a decrease in bosses’ ratings of individuals’ interpersonal relationships. That is, managers in company B who were different from their cohort in the number of years they had been with the company were perceived by their bosses to have poor interpersonal relationships. For company C, over half of the demographic variables were negatively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness, even though these relationships were not statistically significant (see Table 5.4).

• • • •

Table 5.3 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company B

• •

• • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • •

•

Chapter 5: Experience—The Influence of Diversity on Managerial Effectiveness 60 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Managing Knowledge and Interpersonal and Success Contextually leading relationships initiative orientation adept Age distance .30 .20 .16 .24 .30 Native country distance .19 .18 .04 .16 –.00 Years with company distance –.30 –.38 –.15 –.21 –.16 Years of education distance –.12 –.01 –.08 –.12 –.19 Race distance A A A A A Sex distance –.16 .02 –.22 –.19 .01 Note: Bold correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). A cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. Managers N = 40.

Table 5.4 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company C Managing Knowledge and Interpersonal and Success Contextually leading relationships initiative orientation adept Age distance –.15 .08 –.03 .14 –.08 Native country distance –.20 .09 –.09 –.18 –.10 Years with company distance –.01 –.01 .06 –.00 .11 Years of education distance .02 –.04 –.16 –.19 .00 Race distance –.25 –.28 –.29 –.08 –.32 Sex distance .11 .09 .00 .00 .24 Note: Managers N = 35.

Results for the last company in our study (labeled D) showed over half of the demographic variables were negatively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness (these relationships

• •

• •

• • • • • •

• •

• • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

were not statistically significant). We found one statistically significant association between an increase in sex distance and bosses’ ratings of managers’ managing and leading effectiveness. Phrased differently, as sex distance increases, perception of leadership effectiveness increases. 61

Table 5.5 Correlations Between Organizational Demographic Variables and Managerial Effectiveness for Company D Managing Knowledge and Interpersonal and Success Contextually leading relationships initiative orientation adept Age distance –.00 .12 –.12 –.11 –.11 Native country distance –.02 –.34 –.09 –.23 –.05 Years with company distance .21 –.06 –.03 –.00 .06 Years of education distance .05 .00 –.18 –.34 –.01 Race distance –.04 –.42 –.20 –.34 –.05 Sex distance .44 .38 .39 .24 .24 Note: Bold correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). Managers N = 20.

These results suggest that an individual’s demographic difference from his or her cohort can affect perceptions of his or her effectiveness. Comparing the results across all four companies, being unlike others in terms of education and nationality may affect perceptions of effectiveness. These data also suggest that people who have been in a job for a long time are perceived by their bosses as less effective. More obviously, those who have achieved higher educational degrees than their cohorts are perceived by their bosses as being more competent. Finally, an individual’s being different in gender from a predominantly male or female cohort increases bosses’ effectiveness ratings. CHAPTER 6 General Discussion and Conclusions This report presents a conceptual model designed to help identify what it takes to be an effective global manager. The model is based on the literature and our experience working with international executives. With this research we have been able to help answer questions about roles, characteristics, traits, and experiences of effective global managers. Returning to our conceptual model (see Figure 1 on p. 3), the antecedent variable personality does help to explain the kinds of managerial capabilities and role behaviors a manager is most likely to acquire. Personality is also associated with managerial effectiveness as predicted. Personality was not, however, related to a manager’s previous work experience. Therefore, we have modified the model, as reflected in Figure 6 (p. 62), to reflect this change. Experience, the other antecedent variable, was not a predictor of effectiveness. Its inclusion in the model, however, turned out to be more fruitful than we had anticipated. Our results revealed a paradox for managers who aspire to be global leaders. On one hand, exposure to other Chapter 6: General Discussion and Conclusions 62 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

cultures is probably critical for developing the skills needed for global roles. Just as the personality variables share variance with many of the critical global skills, suggesting a link between traits and skill acquisition, a primarily post hoc review of the relationship between cosmopolitan experiences reveals a link between experience and skill set (see Appendices C and D). On the other hand, managers with these experiences were rated lower in some cases by their bosses on the interpersonal criterion measure (this phenomenon will be discussed more fully later in this section). The remaining variables in the model, managerial capabilities and managerial roles, were in one form or another associated with managerial effectiveness as predicted. We suggest that the revised model provides a useful heuristic to identify, appreciate, and explain the relationships among traits, experiences, skills, and capabilities needed to be an effective manager in a global role. These results show that as complexity accrues from the manager’s simultaneously juggling time zones, country infrastructures, and cultural expectations, there is a shift in the skills, capacities, traits, and experiences needed for managerial effectiveness. We now turn our attention to the research questions for which the model was constructed. What Do Global Managers Do? The global executives we studied placed great importance on the roles of liaison (networking across organizational boundaries) and spokesperson, suggesting that as work responsibility shifts from domestic to global, managers place greater emphasis on external roles that take place Figure 6 A Conceptual Model of Predictors of Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context (Revised) Managerial Roles Global Complexity Personality Experience Managerial Capabilities Managerial Effectiveness

•

63

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

•

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

at the organization’s periphery. Our global manager subjects also rated the managerial capabilities of cultural adaptability, international business knowledge, and time management as more important to their job than did local managers. These results track with our definition of a global manager—one who manages and leads across distance, borders, and cultural expectations. An

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

intriguing outcome, worthy of further investigation, is that the roles and capabilities identified by global managers as most important to their work—liaison, spokesperson, and time management— were not the roles and capabilities that their bosses identified as significant to managerial effectiveness. What Does It Take for a Manager to Be Effective when the Work Is Global in Scope? The patterns of traits, role skills, and capabilities global managers need to be effective is similar to that of domestic managers. The bosses of global managers say emotional stability, skill in the roles of leader and decision maker, and the ability to cope with stress are key components to managerial effectiveness regardless of the job’s global complexity. In addition, bosses look to conscientiousness, skill in the role of negotiator and innovator, business knowledge, international business knowledge, cultural adaptability, and the ability to take the perspective of others as significant to the effectiveness of global managers. In regard to how personality relates to managerial effectiveness, emotional stability occupies an important place. It appears that the action roles (decision maker and negotiator) are relatively more critical to the global manager than to the domestic manager. The learning capabilities were also significantly more critical to effectiveness ratings for the global manager. While these results may be intuitively satisfying, it is somewhat surprising that conscientiousness and business knowledge were not significantly related to effectiveness ratings for the domestic managers. (It’s important to note, however, that all of these results could be an artifact of this particular sample.) As for the relationship between experience and effectiveness, many of the results did not support our conjectures. Neither early exposure to other languages and cultures, experience living in other countries, multilingualism at work, nor past experience working with heterogeneous workgroups predicted effectiveness ratings in a global or domestic context. In fact, managers who fit the highly cosmopolitan profile (for example, those that were multilingual and widely traveled) were rated low by their bosses on how well liked and trusted their peers and other colleagues in their organizations found them to be. This finding revealed a paradoxical dark side for managers whose bosses perceived them as being cosmopolitan: exposure to other cultures through education, expatriate experience, language, and travel are critical to developing the skills needed to be an effective global manager, but these same factors are associated with negative ratings from bosses on at least one facet of effectiveness. There are several possible explanations for this paradox. Ratiu (1983) has written that

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

international executives are seen as being extremely effective but also as chameleon-like. In other words, the flexibility and innovation global managers bring to bear on their situations may contribute to their being seen as inconstant; therefore, they may be disliked and mistrusted by Chapter 6: General Discussion and Conclusions 64 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

other people in their organizations. Bennett’s (1993) work on the effects of marginality also provides insight into this paradox. Her work describes how some individuals develop an identity that is independent of culture as a response to spending a considerable amount of time living in different cultures. Their cultural independence enables them to better negotiate between cultures, but at the same time their independence forces a wedge between their relationships and affects perceptions of effectiveness. In investigating cohort homogeneity as one of the experience variables, we wanted to test the hypothesis that there are situations in which a boss’s ratings of an individual’s effectiveness may be influenced by how similar that individual is to other senior managers (in this case demographics— age, native country, company tenure, education, race, and gender). In three of the four companies, we found modest cohort effects, although not in the direction predicted. These results suggest that being unlike others in terms of education, nationality, gender, and tenure may affect bosses’ perceptions of effectiveness. How Can Organizations Best Select and Develop Effective Global Managers? To answer this question it’s necessary to simplify our initial model for understanding and position it as an integrated framework for development. Building upon the significant statistical, albeit modest, relationships that exist between bosses’ effectiveness ratings and four pivotal skills (cultural adaptability, international business knowledge, perspective taking, and skill in the role of innovator), it’s possible to extricate the skills and capabilities unique to the highglobalcomplexity condition. That is beyond the scope of this report. We have expounded on those ideas to create such a framework in Success for the New Global Manager: How to Work Across Distances, Countries, and Cultures (Dalton, Ernst, Deal, & Leslie, 2002). Although practical uses of our model find their rightful home in that book, it’s helpful here to discuss some of the relationships that emerged from our study. For example, readers should note the relationship between the five personality variables and the four pivotal skills. Cultural adaptability and international business knowledge are related to neuroticism (negatively) and conscientiousness (positively). This could be interpreted to mean that individuals who are able to tolerate the ambiguity and relativity of what they know (neuroticism) and who possess the

•

• • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

determination and persistence to learn new ways of doing things (conscientiousness) may be more likely to acquire the knowledge and skills to do business in appropriate ways in other cultures. Individuals who have some appreciation for their own personality will have a greater appreciation for how hard or easy it might be for them to acquire the skills associated with cultural adaptability and international business knowledge. Individuals who have high scores on the trait of agreeableness are more likely to be skilled at perspective taking (seeing the world through someone else’s eyes). In other words, these managers have an inclination toward empathy. Although agreeableness is not directly related to effectiveness, it is related to skills associated with taking the perspective of others. One might surmise that managers with low agreeableness scores would have greater difficulty learning the skill of perspective taking. 65

Individuals who have high scores on the traits of openness and extraversion are also more skilled at playing the role of innovator. These managers are inclined to see novel associations and are able to persuade others to see these new possibilities. Again, knowledge of one’s own personality preferences may help a manager more realistically set his or her development goals. Looking at the experience variables languages spoken, countries lived in, and past expatriate experience, an individual with some measure of cultural adaptability and international business knowledge is also more likely to speak more languages, have lived in more places, and have been an expatriate. It is possible that these individuals can be encouraged to learn languages, to travel, and to seek out expatriate experience with a focused understanding of what is to be learned from such experiences. Finally, because the number of languages one speaks is statistically related to one’s skill as an innovator, there is the intriguing possibility that managers who speak more than one language might also be those most inclined to see novel associations and make unique connections. This suggests that those managers who aspire to global jobs can gain benefits from trying to learn another language even if they never become proficient enough to conduct business in that language. Certain skills and capabilities are common to managerial work whether that work is global or domestic. But subsequent examinations of culture tell us that these common characteristics play out differently as the cultural context, country infrastructure, and distance shift and interact. A manager (or anyone, for that matter) able to make that shift will have specialized knowledge and unique personal capabilities. We propose that individuals wishing to develop such specialized knowledge and capabilities

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

will benefit from understanding themselves and from knowing what experiences facilitate the development of this knowledge and these capabilities (travel, foreign language instruction, and expatriate experience, for example). Limitations Although the sample size is international, most cultural regions of the world are severely underrepresented. These data are also influenced by rater bias. Managers rated themselves on all of the personality, role, and capability scales. The shared variance among the independent variables interfered with our ability to use regression methodology. Finally, the instrumentation was designed by Americans, and the surveys were administered in English. The criterion measures focused primarily on activities that occur inside of the organization, not on activities that occur outside or at the boundaries. These limitations aside, this research is quantitative in an arena replete with best practices, interview data, and case studies of exceptional individuals. The project has considered and integrated a broad number of variables drawn from a range of theoretical perspectives that offer different kinds of relationships to managerial effectiveness criteria. The subject pool is international and the organizations represent a variety of industry types in diverse locations. It is our hope that as we have built productively on work done by others, we have also cleared away some of the underbrush for those scholars and practitioners who will follow our investigation with their own. Chapter 6: General Discussion and Conclusions 66 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context 67

References Adler, N., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people. Academy of Management Executive, 6(3), 52–64. Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Kent. Adler, P. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 13–23. Anderson, L. E. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 293–328. Andrews, J. D. (1967). The achievement motive and advancement in two types of organizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 163–168. Aycan, Z. (1997). Acculturation of expatriate managers: A process model of adjustment and effectiveness. New Approaches to Employee Management, 4, 1–40. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124. Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Boston: Harvard University Press. Barrick, M. R. (2000, April). [Question-and-answer session on the five-factor model of personality.] Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). What is a global manager? In Global strategies: Insights from the world’s leading thinkers (pp. 77–91). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bartlett, C. A., Doz, Y., & Hedlund, G. (Eds.). (1990). Managing the global firm. New York: Routledge. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139. Beggs, J. M., & Doolittle, D. C. (1988). Mintzberg revisited: A study of chief executives. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 9(6), 17–21. Bennett, A. (1989, February 27). The chief executives of the year 2000 will be experienced abroad. Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109–136). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Berry, J. (1990). Imposed etics, emics, and derived etics: Their conceptual and operational status in cross-cultural psychology. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate: Vol. 7. Frontiers of anthropology (pp. 84–97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968– 1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265–289. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams (pp. 47–68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 68 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D. E., Clore, G. L., Jr., & Smeaton, G. (1996). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167–1170. Caditz, J. (1976). Ethnic identification, interethnic contact, and belief in integration. Social Forces, 54(3), 632–645. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R., Oppler, S., & Sage, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carroll, G. R., & Harrison, J. R. (1998). Organizational demography and culture: Insights from a formal model and simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 637–667.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World Book. Church, T., & Lonner, W. J. (1998). Study of personality. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 32–62. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cox, T., Jr., & Beale, R. L. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity: Reading, cases and activities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cross, S. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 673–698. Cui, G., & Awa, N. E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311–328. Cui, G., & Van Den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 227–241. Dalton, M., Ernst, C., Deal, J., & Leslie, J. (2002). Success for the new global manager: How to work across distances, countries, and cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership. Dalton, M., & Swigert, S. (1999). Learning to learn: The relationship of learning versatility to perceptions of learning behavior and managerial effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript. Dalton, M. A. (1998). Developing leaders for global roles. In C. M. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development, (pp. 379–402). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership. Dalton, M. A., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1996). How to design an effective system for developing managers. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Davis, M. H., & Kraus, L. A. (1997). Personality and empathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp.144–168). New York: Guilford Press. DeRaad, B., Perugini, M., & Szirmak, A. (1997). In pursuit of a cross lingual reference structure of personality traits: Comparisons among five languages. European Journal of Personality, 11, 167–185. DeVries, D. (1971). Sources of influence on faculty behavior. (Center for Social Organization of Schools Rep. No. 106). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University. Diener, E., Larsen, R., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–592. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 195–214. 69

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150. Emmons, R. A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 815–826. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman. Feldman, D. C., & Tompson, H. B. (1992). Entry shock, culture shock: Socializing the new breed of global managers. Human Resource Management, 31(4), 345–362. Ferdman, B. M. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 37–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Freud, S. (1960). Origins and development of psychoanalysis. New York: Regency-Gateway. Gale, H. (1919). The psychology of “native sons.” The American Journal of Psychology, 30(1), 27–39. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gibbs, B. (1994). The effects of environment and technology on managerial roles. Journal of Management, 20(3), 581–604. Glick, W., Miller, C., & Huber, G. (1993). The impact of upper echelon diversity on organizational performance. In G. Huber & W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 176– 224). New York: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, A. I. (1976). The relevance of cosmopolitan/local orientations to professional values and behavior. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 3(3), 331–356. Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21–32. Grove, C. L., & Torbiorn, I. (1985). A new conceptualization of intercultural adjustment and the goals of training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 205–233. Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 659–684. Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity (pp. 237–252). London: Sage Publications. Hannigan, T. P. (1990). Traits, attitudes and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 89–111. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications.

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 30. Personality: Current theory and research (pp. 58–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. References 70 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97. Hunt, J. S., & Saul, P. N. (1975). The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 690–702. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jenn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1997). Opening Pandora’s box: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Unpublished manuscript, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kalleberg, A. L., & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and rewards: Explaining age differences in job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 78–90. Kanter, R. M. (1995). World class: Thriving locally in the global economy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kaplan, R. E. (1997). SKILLSCOPE. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kealy, D. J. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 387–428. Kets de Vries, M., & Florent-Treacy, E. (1999). The new global leaders: Richard Branson, Percy Barnevik, and David Simon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kets de Vries, M., & Mead, C. (1992). The development of the global leader within the multinational corporation. In V. Pucik, N. M. Tichy, & C. K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing management: Creating and leading the competitive organization (pp. 187–205). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and development: Current issues and emerging

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

trends. Journal of Management, 14(2), 205–229. Kirschenbaum, A. B., & Goldberg, A. I. (1976). Organizational behavior, career orientations, and propensity to move among professionals. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 3(3), 357–372. Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. (1992). Diversity in work group sex composition: Implication for majority and minority members. In P. Tolbert & S. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 115–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. LaFrombosie, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. Lau, A. W., & Pavett, C. M. (1980). The nature of managerial work: A comparison of publicand private-sector managers. Group & Organization Studies, 5(4), 453–466. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1), 1–22. 71

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University. Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 181–199. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1984). Goal-setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1994). Learning agility: The learning architect user’s manual. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger, Inc. Lombardo, M. M., & McCauley, C. (1988). Benchmarks. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (1999). Selecting international executives: A suggested framework and annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an observational system for measuring leader behavior in international settings. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Managers and leaders: An international perspective (pp. 117–141). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Maddi, S. R., & Kobassa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive. Chicago: Dorsy. Malone, M. (1994, April 11). Perpetual motion executives. Forbes, 153, 93–98. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan. McCall, M. W., & Segrist, C. A. (1980). In pursuit of the manager’s job: Building on Mintzberg. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. McCall, M. W., Jr., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mahoney, J. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives. Lexington, MA: ICEDR.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

McCall, M. W., Jr., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mahoney, J. (1997). Prospector. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McCauley, C. M. (1986). Developmental experiences in managerial work: A literature review. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross cultural assessment of the five factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 171–188. McNelly, J. T., Rush, R. R., & Bishop, M. E. (1968). Cosmopolitan media usage in the diffusion of international affairs news. Journalism Quarterly, 45(2), 329–332. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1994). Rounding out the manager’s job. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 11–26. Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 32(4), 246–254. Morris, J. H., & Sherman, J. D. (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 512–526. Morrison, A. M., White R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? (Rev. ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. References 72 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Morrison, R. G., & Hock, R. R. (1986). Career building: Learning from cumulative work experience. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 236–273). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 23–35. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task effectiveness should be distinguished from contextual effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 295–322. Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory: The effects of group composition on the individual. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 125–146). New York: Springer-Verlag. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murry, A. I. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm effectiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 125–142. Nicolson, N., & West, M. (1988). Job change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. New York: Harper Business. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. In D. M. Saunder (Series Ed.) & Z. Aycan (Vol. Ed.), New approaches to employee management: Vol. 4. Expatriate management: Theory and research (pp. 63–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Bartette, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–27. Paolillo, J. (1987). Role profiles for managers in different functional areas. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 109–118. Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 170–177. Perlmutter, H., & Heenan, D. (1994). Global strategies: Insights from the world’s leading thinkers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M. F., & Hunt, J. G. (1997). International perspectives on international leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 203–231. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Some consequences of organizational demography: Potential impacts of an aging work force on formal organizations. In S. B. Kiesler, J. N. Morgan, & V.K. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Aging: Social change (pp. 291–329). New York: Academic Press. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 299–357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 73

Piedmont, R. L., & Chae, J. H. (1997). Cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model in personality: Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for Koreans. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 28, 131–155. Prahalad, C. K., & Oosterveld, J. P. (1999). Transforming internal governance: The challenge for multinationals. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 31–39. Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job effectiveness and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 9(1), 126–146. Pucik, V., & Saba, T. (1998). Selecting and developing the global versus the expatriate manager: A review of the state-of-the-art. Human Resource Planning, 21(4), 40–54.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

Quelch, J. A., & Bloom, H. (1996). The return of the country manager. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 30–43. Quinn, R. (1990). Becoming a master manager: A competency framework. New York: Wiley. Ratiu, I. (1983). Thinking internationally: A comparison of how international executives learn. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1-2), 139–150. Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 723–736. Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 328–367. Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1979). Some correlations of communication roles in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 42-57. Roddick, A. (1991). Body and soul. New York: Crown. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435–455. Rotondi, T. (1977). Reference groups and local-cosmopolitans. Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 257–262. Ruben, M. (1976). Assessing communication competence for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organizational Studies, 1, 334–354. Ruderman, M. N., & Hughes-James, M. W. (1998). Leadership development across race and gender. In C. D. McCauley, R. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 291–335). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership. Saal, F. E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 53–61. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job effectiveness in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Studying human values. In A. M. Bouvy, F. Van de Vijver, P. Boski, & P. G. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology (pp. 97–129). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47. Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101–1110. Sen, J., & Das, J. (1990). Roles of managers as perceived by business students. Psychological Reports, 66(2), 391–400. References 74 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Sessa, V. I., Hansen, M. C., Prestridge, S., & Kossler, M. E. (1999). Geographically dispersed teams: An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Sessa, V. I., & Jackson, S. E. (1995). Diversity in decision-making teams: All differences are not

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

created equal. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 133–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, J. O., & Schellenberger, R. E. (1991). Differences in perceptions of managerial roles by gender among southern business students. Psychological Reports, 69(3), 839–843. Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., Jr., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6–29. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Super, D. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper and Row. Tajifel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 23, 65–93. Tajifel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Wood (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers. Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 321–355. Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C., & Wallace, A. W. (1996). The effects of cultural diversity in work groups. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 14 (pp. 1– 33). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.. Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the overseas setting. New York: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1995). A theoretical framework for the study of diversity. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 11–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Triandis, H. C., Kurowski, L. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (1994). Workplace diversity. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 4 (2nd ed., pp. 769–827). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.. Tsui, A. S., & Egan, T. D. (1994, August). Effectiveness implications of relational demography in vertical dyads. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Diversity in organizations: Lessons from demography research. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 191–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2),

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

402–423. Tsui, A. S., Xin, K. R., & Egan, T. D. (1995). Relational demography: The missing link in vertical dyad linkage. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams (pp. 97– 129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 75

Tung, R. L. (1997). International and intranational diversity. In C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Work Groups (pp. 163–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tung, R. L. (1998). A contingency framework of selection and training of expatriates revisited. Human Resource Management Review, 8(1), 23–37. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A self-cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 83–85. Wagner, W., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in topmanagement groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74–92. Wharton, A. S., & Baron, J. N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52, 574–587. Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Wills, S., & Barham, K. (1994). Being an international manager. European Management Journal, 12(1), 49–58. Wilson, M., & Dalton, M. A. (1998). International success: Selecting, developing, and supporting expatriate managers. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Yeung, A. K., & Ready, D. A. (1995). Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations: A comparative study in eight nations. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 529–547. Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9(2, Pt. 2). Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376. References 76 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context 77

Appendix A: Participant Background Form 1. How many years total have you been with this company? ______________________________

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2. What is your current job title and/or position? _______________________________________ Please briefly describe your main responsibilities: 3. How many years have you been in your current role? _________________________________ 4. In how many countries are you a manager? [ ] one country—I am not an expatriate [ ] one country—I am an expatriate [ ] more than one country on the same continent and I am not an expatriate [ ] more than one country on the same continent and I am an expatriate [ ] more than one country on different continents and I am not an expatriate [ ] more than one country on different continents and I am an expatriate 5. In how many time zones do you work? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 6. In the time zones that you do work, how many are more than an hour away? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 7. Have you been an expatriate manager in the past? [ ] yes [ ] no 8a. In the course of your work, how many languages do you speak? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 8b. In your day-to-day life away from work, how many languages do you speak? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 9. How many languages did you speak ages 1–13? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 10. What is your native language? ____________________________________________________ Appendix A 78 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

11. How many different countries have you lived in over your lifetime? []1[]4 []2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 12. In what country were you born? __________________________________________________ 13. In what country do you currently live? _____________________________________________ For how many years? ___________________________________________________________ 14. How many years of formal education have you completed? [ ] 10 years or less [ ] 15 years [ ] 11 years [ ] 16 years [ ] 12 years [ ] 17 years [ ] 13 years [ ] 18 years or more [ ] 14 years 15. In your lifetime, how many countries were you educated in (please include all levels of schooling)? []1[]4

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

[]2[]5 [ ] 3 [ ] 6 or more 16. If you studied beyond secondary school (that is, beyond high school or Gymnasium level), what academic discipline was your main field of study (for example, engineering)? ___________________________________________________________________________ _ 17. You are: [ ] Male [ ] Female 18. Your present age: _____________________________________________________________ 19. Please describe your race or ethnic origin. [ ] Asian [ ] Multi-racial [ ] Black [ ] Other (please specify) _________________________________________ [ ] White 79

Please think about the most recent position in which your responsibilities were domestic— responsible for only one country and you are/were not an expatriate. What year(s) are/were you in this job? Please think about the people whom you most closely worked with while in this position. Please answer the following questions with this group in mind. Do not indicate the names of the individuals about whom you are providing data. Please list the business relationship of the ten people with whom you most closely worked (e.g., “This person was my boss/subordinate/peer”). Please complete the requested background information for the individuals listed. In the columns below, please write the letter of the appropriate response on the corresponding line for each individual. For Native Country and Country of Current Residence, write your answer in the space below. Relationship: 1)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 2)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 3)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 4)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 5)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ *See next page for options. Sex a. female b. male Race or Ethnic Origin a. Asian b. Black c. White d. Multi-racial e. Other Age a. younger than me b. about my age c. older than me

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Native Country (write in) Country of Current Residence (write in) Functional area in which person has the most years of experience* Appendix A 80 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Relationship: 6)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 7)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 8)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 9)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ 10)_______________________ ________ _____________________ __________ __________ __________ __________ *Functional area in which person has the most years of experience: a. Accounting b. Administration c. Advertising/Public Relations d. Credit/Finance e. Education f. Engineering g. Human Resources/Training h. Information i. Law Sex a. female b. male Race or Ethnic Origin a. Asian b. Black c. White d. Multi-racial e. Other Age a. younger than me b. about my age c. older than me Native Country (write in) Country of

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Current Residence (write in) Functional area in which person has the most years of experience* r. Research and Development s. Sales t. Secretarial/Support u. Security v. Social Service w. Systems Analysis x. Top Management y. Other j. Manufacturing k. Marketing l. Materials Management/Purchasing m. Medicine n. Operations o. Product Development p. Quality Control q. Research/Analysis

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Appendix B: Scales and Alphas ROLE BEHAVIORS Managing Information Monitor (Alpha .68) 1. Can seek information energetically. 2. Can probe, dig beneath the surface, test the validity of information. 3. Can create order out of large quantities of information. 4. Can spot problems, opportunities, threats, trends early. 5. Am logical, data-based, rational. Spokesperson (Alpha .80) 1. Am crisp, clear, articulate. 2. Am skillful in speaking to external agencies or individuals. 3. Am a strong communicator. 4. Can effectively represent corporate interests at multiple levels of interaction in public and private sectors. 5. Can effectively act as agent and advocate for the organization. 6. Can effectively represent the organization at social or civic functions. Managing Relationships Leader (Alpha .90) 1. Am adept at establishing and conveying a sense of purpose within the organization. 2. Am a team builder; bring people together successfully around tasks. 3. Structure subordinates’ work appropriately. 4. Recognize and reward people for their work. 5. Am effective at managing conflict. 6. Confront others skillfully. 7. Make good judgments about people. 8. Attract talented people. 9. Consider personalities when dealing with people. 10. Am a good coach, counselor, mentor; am patient with people as they learn. 11. Bring out the best in people.

•

81

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

12. Give subordinates appropriately challenging assignments and the opportunity to grow. 13. Make good use of people; do not exploit. 14. Am inspirational; help people to see the importance of what they are doing. 15. Am able to inspire, motivate, spark others to take action. 16. Delegate effectively. Liaison (Alpha .75) 1. Possess an extensive network of contacts necessary to do the job. 2. Am skilled at selling upward, influencing superiors. 3. Establish strong collaborative relationships. 4. Effectively create alliances throughout the organization. 5. Effectively create alliances external to the organization. Managing Action Decision Maker (Alpha .87) 1. Am action oriented; press for immediate results. 2. Am decisive; do not procrastinate on decisions.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3. Am a troubleshooter; enjoy solving problems. 4. Can implement decisions, follow through, follow up well; an expediter. 5. Can make decisions rapidly when speed and timing are paramount. 6. Can make good decisions under pressure with incomplete information. 7. Can modify plans in response to changing conditions. 8. Can create significant organizational change. 9. Can introduce needed change even in the face of opposition. 10. Manage the process of decision making effectively; know who to involve on what issue. 11. Am comfortable with the power of the managerial role. Innovator (Alpha .83) 1. Can form novel associations and ideas that create new and different ways of solving problems. 2. Can depart from accepted group norms of thinking and behaving when necessary. 3. Can try new approaches. 4. Am entrepreneurial; seize new opportunities. 5. Consistently generate new ideas. 6. Am good at promoting an idea or vision; persuading. Negotiator (Alpha .79) 1. Carefully weigh consequences of contemplated action. 2. Can organize and manage big, long-term projects; have good shepherding skills. 3. Can translate strategy into action over the long haul. 4. Build work and management systems that are self-monitoring and can be managed effectively by remote control. 5. Establish effective management practices for directing employees I see only twice a month. 6. Negotiate adeptly with individuals and groups over roles and resources. 7. Carry out negotiations with multiple risk factors and unknowns. PERSONALITY Neuroticism (Alpha .80) Extraversion (Alpha .74) Openness (Alpha .74) Agreeableness (Alpha .73) Conscientiousness (Alpha .81) MANAGERIAL CAPABILITIES Knowledge Business Knowledge (Alpha .78) 1. Am a good general manager. 2. Am effective in a job with a big scope.

•

•

Appendix B 82 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

83

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3. Pick up knowledge and expertise easily in a new assignment. 4. Understand our business and how it works. 5. Understand cash flows, financial reports, corporate annual reports. 6. Tap local market knowledge and use it to underpin corporate strategy. 7. Am able to analyze and choose the best format for collaboration. 8. Know when and how to call on the specialized expertise of others. International Business Knowledge (Alpha .91) 1. Can integrate local and global information for multi-site decision making. 2. Can discern and manage cultural influences on business practices and marketing. 3. Can create innovative corporate culture to leverage unique cultural-based knowledge and information for new product and service development. 4. Can negotiate effectively in different business environments, even with jet lag and through translation. 5. Can apply knowledge of public regulatory framework in multiple countries. 6. Am able to make deliberate choices about how to conduct business successfully in a given part of the world. Learning Behaviors Cultural Adaptability (Alpha .85) 1. Can effectively select and develop people in multiple cultural settings. 2. Can motivate multicultural teams effectively. 3. Can evaluate the work of others in a culturally neutral way. 4. Can inspire information sharing among individuals who do not know/see each other and who may represent different cultures. 5. Can adapt management style to meet cultural expectations. Self-Development (Alpha .85) 1. Can compensate for my own weaknesses. 2. Can capitalize on my own strengths. 3. Respond well to new situations that require me to stretch and grow. 4. Learn from experience; am not set in my ways. 5. Make needed adjustments in my own behavior. 6. Am eager to learn and grow. 7. Seek out new and diverse work experiences. Perspective Taking (Alpha .70) 1. Listen well. 2. Take into account people’s concerns when trying to effect change. 3. Succeed in viewing a situation through other people’s eyes. 4. Recognize the limits of own point of view. Resiliency Behaviors Managing Time (Alpha .79) 1. Can set priorities well; can distinguish clearly between important and unimportant tasks. 2. Can make the most of the time available; am extremely productive. 3. Can deal with interruptions appropriately; know when to admit interruptions and when to screen them out. 4. Avoid spreading myself too thin. 5. Am able to work on planes, in airports, in hotels. 6. Exhibit a high degree of comfort with high-tech communications.

• • • • • • • • •

7. Can balance inflow of information from a variety of sources—voice mail, e-mail, fax, cellular phones, or pagers—with the need to get things done. Managing Adversity (Alpha .68) 1. Am capable, cool in high-pressure situations. 2. Can deal well with setbacks; resilient; bounce back from failure, defeat. 3. Am optimistic; take the attitude that most problems can be solved. 4. Use constructive outlets for tension and frustration. Integrity (Alpha .68)

•

Appendix B 84 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

1. Am willing to admit ignorance. 2. Have integrity; am trustworthy. 3. Do not put my own ambitions ahead of the organization’s objectives. Criterion Effectiveness Measures Managing and Leading (Alpha .87) 1. Is able to establish and communicate common long-term goals. 2. Is an expert communicator. 3. Is an inspirational leader. 4. Is an effective manager. 5. Excels at selecting and developing good people. 6. Consistently helps staff produce high-quality work. 7. Establishes and maintains good relationships with subordinates. 8. Is extremely effective in managing conflict to enhance the quality of the decision. Interpersonal Relationships (Alpha .80) 1. Works with senior managers effectively. 2. Has excellent relationships within the company. 3. Works well with peers and other departments to get the work done. 4. Works extremely well as a team member. Knowledge and Initiative (Alpha .78) 1. Takes calculated entrepreneurial risks. 2. Demonstrates independence and initiative. 3. Has broad business knowledge of political, economic, and technological issues. 4. Demonstrates confidence in the face of ambiguity. 5. Is professionally competent. 6. Has superior knowledge of the business. Success Orientation (Alpha .68) 1. Consistently drives for better outcomes. 2. Meets company goals and expectations for the position. 3. Could effectively handle the most senior position in the company. 4. Uses the complexity of the job to help produce innovative outcomes. Contextually Adept (Alpha .68) 1. Is a good judge of character, even across cultures. 2. Is effective at managing important external relationships. 3. Uses cultural difference as a source of organizational strength.

• •

Appendix C: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Boss Global)

•

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

85

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Neuroticism .80 -.16 .05 -.33 -.43 -.44 -.50 -.41 -.22 -.27 -.28 -.41 -.37 -.17 -.23 -.22 -.11 .00 .08 -.07 -.01 .00 -.23 -.07 2 Extraversion .74 .45 .23 .20 .19 .22 .25 .42 .23 .37 .25 .13 .27 .07 .02 .11 .10 .13 -.08 -.03 .00 .09 .04 3 Openness .74 .14 -.17 -.04 .15 .09 .21 .05 .16 .05 .00 .25 -.05 -.11 .18 .02 .06 -.04 -.04 -.02 -.02 -.01 4 Agreeableness .73 .27 -.01 .16 .03 .19 .28 .17 .11 .17 -.01 .00 .15 .32 .00 .05 .00 .10 .18 .02 .00 5 Conscientiousness .81 .36 .17 .24 .25 .25 .21 .36 .42 .12 .34 .28 .10 .05 -.05 .08 .12 .00 .34 .30 6 Business knowledge .78 .16 .49 .35 .57 .52 .68 .65 .43 .61 .51 .17 .23 -.23 .25 -.04 -.10 .32 .19 7 Coping .68 .42 .42 .60 .55 .57 .50 .50 .45 .43 .43 .16 -.08 .12 .08 .05 .36 .26 8 Monitor .68 .50 .43 .40 .52 .42 .44 .29 .26 .25 .07 .13 .00 .11 .00 .14 .15 9 Spokesperson .80 .56 .52 .40 .44 .55 .43 .46 .34 .30 .09 .01 .12 -.03 .19 .01 10 Leader .90 .54 .66 .68 .49 .52 .71 .59 .27 .01 .11 .18 -.03 .27 .06 11 Liaison .75 .47 .52 .51 .43 .51 .45 .29 .03 .18 -.03 .07 .17 .13 12 Decision maker .87 .61 .48 .25 .23 .29 .25 -.20 .24 .17 .00 .38 .25 13 Negotiator .79 .42 .69 .66 .50 .26 -.14 .13 .22 .16 .38 .26 14 Innovator .83 .38 .34 .29 .21 .02 .06 .09 .02 .24 .10 15 International business knowledge .91 .51 .40 .44 -.28 .45 .13 .00 .39 .22 16 Cultural adaptability .85 .43 .40 -.21 .45 .15 -.08 .26 .14 17 Perspective taking .70 .17 .07 .07 .17 .23 .21 .17 18 Number languages xx -.28 .29 .10 -.20 .14 -.06 19 Expatriate xx -.64 -.02 -.03 -.13 -.06

• • • • • •

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

20 Number countries xx -.08 -.09 .00 .08 21 Managing/leading .87 .70 .63 .63 22 Interpersonal relationships .80 .33 .51 23 Knowledge/initiative .78 .64 24 Success orientation .68

Appendix C 86 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Appendix D: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, Capabilities, and Performance Variables (Boss Local)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Neuroticism .80 -.40 -.13 -.10 -.27 -.13 -.34 -.19 -.22 -.11 -.07 -.23 -.07 -.11 -.09 -.09 .00 .01 .10 -.10 -.22 -.12 -.17 -.23 2 Extraversion .74 .42 .03 .18 .16 .23 .08 .30 .27 .21 .30 .13 .30 .13 .09 .03 -.02 -.01 .08 .20 .01 .06 .11 3 Openness .74 .34 -.04 .01 .03 .02 -.01 .08 .04 .06 .05 .25 .01 .05 .07 .08 .03 .11 -.06 -.11 .04 -.05 4 Agreeableness .73 .06 -.14 .01 .01 -.24 .08 -.02 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.19 -.03 .20 -.17 .23 -.17 -.10 .01 -.11 -.12 5 Conscientiousness .81 .29 .18 .25 .14 .26 .15 .28 .29 .04 .20 .17 .15 -.11 -.17 .11 .08 .03 .15 .17 6 Business knowledge .78 .54 .49 .52 .46 .51 .50 .68 .43 .55 .51 .44 -.01 -.18 .14 .08 .03 .14 .17 7 Coping .68 .51 .51 .61 .46 .65 .49 .56 .30 .24 .52 -.11 -.01 .05 .14 .02 .12 .22 8 Monitor .68 .34 .47 .31 .56 .43 .43 .20 .19 .43 -.10 .11 -.04 .15 .01 .19 .18 9 Spokesperson .80 .44 .56 .51 .43 .45 .52 .31 .40 .03 -.05 .03 .33 .19 .25 .26 10 Leader .90 .45 .65 .53 .49 .23 .36 .61 -.05 .09 -.02 .23 .14 .18 .20 11 Liaison .75 .43 .48 .41 .40 .42 .32 -.10 .05 .00 .13 .16 .15 .21 12 Decision maker .87 .58 .54 .26 .22 .41 .05 -.10 .00 .21 .02 .21 .21 13 Negotiator .79 .46 .53 .48 .42 -.10 .03 -.06 .05 .02 .13 .07 14 Innovator .83 .32 .33 .33 .10 -.15 .15 .01 -.04 .16 .05 15 International business knowledge .91 .67 .25 -.01 .03 .09 .12 .18 .15 .13 16 Cultural adaptability .85 .34 .02 -.27 .35 -.02 .09 .04 .08 17 Perspective taking .70 .05 -.02 .11 .09 .09 .09 .10 18 Number languages xx -.09 .23 .07 -.04 .10 .09 19 Expatriate xx -.68 .06 .08 .06 .04 20 Number countries xx -.02 -.04 -.02 -.03 21 Managing/leading .87 .67 .65 .77 22 Interpersonal relationships .80 .45 .67 23 Knowledge/initiative .78 .69 24 Success orientation .68

87

Appendix E: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Direct Report Global)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Neuroticism .80 -.16 .05 -.33 -.43 -0.4 -.50 -.41 -.22 -.27 -.28 -.41 -.37 -.17 -.23 -.22 -.11 .00 .08 -.07 .02 -.06 -.10 -.07 2 Extraversion .74 .45 .23 .20 .19 .22 .25 .42 .23 .37 .25 .13 .27 .07 .02 .11 .10 .13 -.08 .03 .12 .10 .09 3 Openness .74 .14 -.17 -.04 .15 .09 .21 .05 .16 .05 .00 .25 -.05 -.11 .18 .02 .06 -.04 .10 .09 .06 .00 4 Agreeableness .73 .27 -.01 .16 .03 .19 .28 .17 .11 .17 -.01 .00 .15 .32 .00 .05 .00 -.02 .12 -.02 -.10 5 Conscientiousness .81 .36 .17 .24 .25 .25 .21 .36 .42 .12 .34 .28 .10 .05 -.05 .08 .00 .06 .20 .20 6 Business knowledge .78 .62 .49 .35 .57 .52 .68 .65 .43 .61 .62 .40 .44 -.23 .25 -.07 -.11 .09 .08 7 Coping .68 .42 .42 .60 .55 .57 .50 .50 .45 .43 .43 .16 -.08 .12 .10 .08 .15 .13 8 Monitor .68 .50 .43 .40 .52 .42 .44 .29 .26 .25 .07 .13 .00 .10 .04 .15 .18 9 Spokesperson .80 .56 .52 .40 .44 .55 .43 .46 .34 .30 .09 .01 .12 .12 .08 .08 10 Leader .90 .54 .66 .68 .49 .52 .71 .59 .27 .01 .11 .09 .03 .03 .05 11 Liaison .75 .47 .52 .51 .53 .51 .45 .29 .03 .18 -.03 -.02 -.01 -.06 12 Decision maker .87 .61 .48 .25 .23 .29 .25 -.20 .24 .07 -.01 .21 .21 13 Negotiator .79 .42 .69 .66 .50 .26 -.14 .13 .00 -.02 -.01 .04 14 Innovator .83 .38 .34 .29 .21 .02 .06 .06 -.02 .17 .16 15 International business knowledge .91 .74 .41 .44 -.42 .45 -.03 -.03 .08 .10 16 Cultural adaptability .85 .53 .40 -.21 .45 .03 -.03 .04 .02 17 Perspective taking .70 .17 .07 .07 .00 .04 -.07 -.17 18 Number languages xx -.28 .29 -.05 -.09 -.04 -.08

• • • • • • •

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

19 Expatriate xx -.64 .06 -.03 -.02 .06 20 Number countries xx .09 .09 .14 .17 21 Managing/leading .87 .83 .75 .74 22 Interpersonal relationships .80 .67 .67 23 Knowledge/initiative .78 .80 24 Success orientation .68

Appendix E 88 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

Appendix F: Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors, and Performance Variables (Direct Report Local)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Neuroticism .80 -.40 -.13 -.10 -.27 -.13 -.34 -.19 -.22 -.11 -.07 -.23 -.07 -.11 -.09 -.09 .00 .00 .10 -.10 .02 -.22 .05 . 01 2 Extraversion .74 .42 .03 .18 .16 .23 .08 .30 .27 .21 .30 .13 .30 .13 .09 .03 -.01 .08 .20 .02 .10 -.01 .01 3 Openness .74 .34 -.04 .01 .03 .02 -.01 .08 .04 .06 .05 .25 .01 .05 .07 .08 .03 .11 .08 .02 .09 .04 4 Agreeableness .73 .06 -.14 .01 .01 -.24 .08 -.02 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.19 -.03 .20 -.17 .23 -.17 .07 .08 -.01 -.04 5 Conscientiousness .81 .29 .18 .25 .14 .26 .15 .28 .29 .04 .20 .17 .15 -.11 -.17 .11 .29 .22 .27 .29 6 Business knowledge .78 .54 .49 .52 .46 .51 .50 .68 .43 .55 .51 .44 -.01 -.18 .14 .10 .15 .26 .20 7 Coping .68 .51 .51 .61 .46 .65 .49 .56 .30 .24 .52 -.11 -.01 .05 .07 .16 .18 .19 8 Monitor .68 .34 .47 .31 .56 .43 .43 .20 .19 .43 -.10 .11 -.04 .09 .00 .19 .10 9 Spokesperson .80 .44 .56 .51 .43 .45 .52 .31 .40 .03 -.05 .03 .12 .16 .17 .15 10 Leader .90 .45 .65 .53 .49 .23 .36 .61 -.05 .09 -.02 .20 .03 .18 .16 11 Liaison .75 .43 .48 .41 .40 .42 .32 -.11 .05 .00 .10 .11 .18 .14 12 Decision maker .87 .58 .54 .26 .22 .41 .05 -.10 .00 .14 .07 .25 .20 13 Negotiator .79 .46 .53 .48 .42 -.10 .03 -.06 .10 .09 .20 .21 14 Innovator .83 .32 .33 .33 .10 -.15 .15 -.02 -.05 .16 .07 15 International business knowledge .91 .67 .25 -.01 .03 .09 .10 .15 .22 .22 16 Cultural adaptability .85 .34 .02 -.27 .35 .14 .15 .21 .25 17 Perspective taking .70 .05 -.02 .11 .07 .01 .09 .02 18 Number languages xx .04 .05 .04 .03 -.01 -.03 19 Expatriate xx -.68 -.13 -.18 -.06 -.13 20 Number countries xx .10 .20 .08 .08 21 Managing/leading .87 .67 .65 .77 22 Interpersonal relations .80 .45 .67 23 Knowledge/initiative .78 .69 24 Success orientation .68

89

Appendix G: Hypotheses Organized by Questions of Interest What do global managers do? Managerial Roles HYPOTHESIS 1.1: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the roles of monitor and spokesperson than will managers in contexts of low global complexity. (p. 14) HYPOTHESIS 1.2: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the role of liaison than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in both contexts will perceive the role of leader equally. (p. 15) HYPOTHESIS 1.3: Managers in contexts of high and low global complexity will perceive the roles of decision maker, innovator, and negotiator equally. (p. 16) Managerial Capabilities HYPOTHESIS 3.17: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

to the capabilities of cultural adaptability and perspective taking than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of selfdevelopment equally. (p. 37) HYPOTHESIS 3.18: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the capability of international business knowledge than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of business knowledge equally. (p. 37) HYPOTHESIS 3.19: Managers in contexts of high global complexity will attribute more importance to the capabilities of time management and coping than will managers in contexts of low global complexity, but managers in either context will perceive the capability of integrity equally. (p. 37) What does it take for a manager to be effective when the work is global in scope? Managerial Roles HYPOTHESIS 1.4: The role of monitor will be related to the effectiveness criterion contextually adept for managers in contexts of low and high global complexity. (p. 17) HYPOTHESIS 1.5: The role of spokesperson will be related to the effectiveness criterion contextually adept for managers in contexts of high global complexity. (p. 17) HYPOTHESIS 1.6: The role of leader will be related to the effectiveness criterion managing and leading for managers in contexts of low global complexity. (p. 17) Appendix G 90 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

HYPOTHESIS 1.7: The role of liaison will be related to the effectiveness criteria contextually adept and interpersonal relationships for managers in high-global-complexity jobs. (p. 17) HYPOTHESIS 1.8: The role of decision maker will be related to the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation for managers in low- and high-global-complexity jobs. (p. 17) HYPOTHESIS 1.9: The role of innovator will be related to the effectiveness criterion knowledge and initiative for managers in low- and high-global-complexity jobs. (p. 17) HYPOTHESIS 1.10: The role of negotiator will be related to all effectiveness criteria for managers in low- and high-global-complexity jobs. (p. 17) Personality HYPOTHESIS 2.1: Regardless of how globally complex the context is in which the manager works, conscientiousness will be positively associated with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation. (p. 25) HYPOTHESIS 2.2: Extraversion will be positively associated with the managerial effectiveness criteria managing and leading and interpersonal relationships when the work is more globally complex. (p. 25) HYPOTHESIS 2.4: Agreeableness will be positively associated with the managerial effectiveness indicators managing and leading and interpersonal relationships when the managerial work is more globally complex. (p. 26) HYPOTHESIS 2.6: Neuroticism will be significantly and negatively correlated with all of the effectiveness criteria when the managerial work is more globally complex. (p. 26) Managerial Capabilities Learning Behaviors

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

HYPOTHESIS 3.1: Self-development will share significant variance with all effectiveness criteria for managers in the low-global-context group. (p. 31) HYPOTHESIS 3.2: Perspective taking will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria managing and leading, interpersonal relationships, success orientation, and contextually adept when the manager’s work is more globally complex. (p. 33) HYPOTHESIS 3.3: Perspective taking will be positively associated with the personality scale openness. (p. 33) HYPOTHESIS 3.4: Perspective taking will be negatively associated with the personality trait neuroticism. (p. 33) 91

•

HYPOTHESIS 3.5: Cultural adaptability will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria managing and leading, interpersonal relationships, knowledge and initiative, success orientation, and contextually adept when the work is more global in scope. (p. 34) HYPOTHESIS 3.6: Cultural adaptability will be grounded in one’s ability to manage the anxiety associated with the dissonant messages of the foreign workplace and thus will be highly correlated with emotional stability (neuroticism). (p. 35) Knowledge HYPOTHESIS 3.8: Business knowledge will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation regardless of the global complexity of the job. (p. 36) HYPOTHESIS 3.9: International business knowledge will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation when the manager’s work is more globally complex. (p. 36) HYPOTHESIS 3.10: The capability insightful will share significant variance with the effectiveness criteria knowledge and initiative and success orientation regardless of the global complexity of the job. (p. 36) HYPOTHESIS 3.11: Conscientiousness will be related to bosses’ ratings of business knowledge and international business knowledge. (p. 36) Resilience HYPOTHESIS 3.13: The ability to cope with stress will share significant variance with all effectiveness criteria when the manager’s work is more globally complex. (p. 36) HYPOTHESIS 3.14: Integrity will share significant variance with managing and leading and interpersonal relations regardless of global complexity. (p. 36) HYPOTHESIS 3.15: The skill of coping will be negatively associated with the trait neuroticism. (p. 37) HYPOTHESIS 3.16: Time management will be positively associated with conscientiousness. (p. 37) Demographics There are no hypotheses for the demographic variables. However, to the extent permitted by sample size, mean differences on boss and direct report criterion scores will be examined as a function of race, gender, age, and ethnicity of target manager. If indicated, these variables could then be used as covariates.

• •

Experience

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

Appendix G 92 Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

[Eventually the authors intend to combine these variables into a composite variable called cosmopolitan. However, in this paper they are to be considered as independent measures.] HYPOTHESIS 4.1: Cosmopolitanism will be positively correlated with bosses’ ratings of effectiveness. (p. 46) HYPOTHESIS 4.2: Individuals who spoke/speak more languages in early life and adult life, who have lived in more countries, and who were educated in more countries will have higher scores on knowledge and initiative, success orientation, and contextually adept than individuals who have not had these experiences, regardless of the global complexity of their current jobs. (p. 46) HYPOTHESIS 4.3: Cosmopolitanism will be positively related to the personality trait openness. (p. 46) HYPOTHESIS 4.4: Managers who speak multiple languages and who have lived in multiple countries will have higher scores on the personality trait openness. (p. 46) HYPOTHESIS 4.5: Cosmopolitanism will be positively related to self-ratings of the capabilities perspective taking, cultural adaptability, and international business knowledge. (p. 46) HYPOTHESIS 4.7: Experience as an expatriate will be positively related to international business knowledge and cultural adaptability. (p. 47) Early Life and Adult Life HYPOTHESIS 4.6: Number of languages spoken before the age of 13 and number of countries educated in will each be positively associated with the capabilities of perspective taking, cultural adaptability, and international business knowledge. (p. 46) There are no hypotheses for variables related to tenure and time in current role but the authors plan to investigate these relationships in their future work. Heterogeneity of Workgroup in Most Recent Domestic Job HYPOTHESIS 5.1: When the work is more globally complex, managers with a history of working in heterogeneous workgroups in their most recent domestic job will have higher scores on all effectiveness criteria than will their counterparts without this history. (p. 53) Organizational Demography HYPOTHESIS 5.2: As the similarity of an individual’s organizational tenure to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 55) HYPOTHESIS 5.3: As the similarity of an individual’s national culture to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 55) 93

HYPOTHESIS 5.4: As the dissimilarity of an individual’s educational attainment (college degree, for example) to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 56) HYPOTHESIS 5.5: As the similarity of an individual’s gender to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 57) HYPOTHESIS 5.6: As the similarity of an individual’s race to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 57) HYPOTHESIS 5.7: As the similarity of an individual’s age to that of others in a group increases, the perception of that individual’s managerial effectiveness increases. (p. 57) What do organizations need to know and do in order to select and develop people who will manage and lead effectively in the global economy? Personality and Its Relationship to Role Behaviors and Capabilities HYPOTHESIS 2.3: Openness will be positively associated with the role behavior innovator. (p. 26)

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

HYPOTHESIS 2.5: Agreeableness will be positively associated with the role behavior skills that are related to managing people: leader and liaison. (p. 26) HYPOTHESIS 3.7: Openness will be positively associated with the learning scale cultural adaptability. (p. 35) Experience and Its Relationship to Role Behaviors and Capabilities HYPOTHESIS 3.12: Business knowledge and international business knowledge will be positively associated with conscientiousness. (p. 36) Appendix G

MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT The rapid expansion of globalization and multinational corporations means more and more managers work across the borders of multiple countries simultaneously. Some of them are expatriates. Most are not. And although many of these managers are not wrestling with the issues of relocating and adjusting to living in a different culture, they all find themselves dealing with cultural issues—defined in the broadest context—every time they pick up the phone, log onto their e-mail, or disembark from an airplane. What do these managers do? Is it different from the work they did when they managed in their own countries, and if it is different, how so? What does it take for them to be effective when they manage across so many countries simultaneously? What do these managers need to know in order to be effective? What do organizations need to know and do in order to select and develop people who will manage and lead effectively in the global economy? This report addresses those questions as it documents the findings of a Center for Creative Leadership research study into what factors might predict managerial effectiveness in a global context. Although this report is written for scholars, the practical implications of the work have been published in Success for the New Global Manager: How to Work Across Distances, Countries, and Cultures (2002, Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership). The Authors Jean Brittain Leslie is manager of instrument development research in CCL’s products group and instructor of CCL’s Benchmarks® Certification Workshop. She is the coauthor of several CCL publications, including A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe. She holds an M.A. in sociology from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Maxine Dalton is group director of CCL’s Leading in the Context of Difference practice area, in which she manages research and development projects related to understanding how people become effective leading others who are different from them on some major social dimension. She has written extensively about global issues and other subjects, and holds a Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of South Florida. Chris Ernst is a research associate at CCL and focuses on the changing role of leadership in a globally connected world. He is the coauthor of several articles and a frequent presenter on the subject of global issues. His Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology is from North Carolina State University. Jennifer Deal is a research scientist at CCL with interests in global leadership, generational issues of leadership, and other facets of leadership development. She is the author and coauthor of several works related to executive selection, global management, and other issues. She holds a

•

Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from The Ohio State University.

Functions of the International Manager Global competition has forced businesses to change how they manage at home and abroad. The increasing rate of change, technological advances, shorter product life cycles, and highspeed communications are all factors that contribute to these changes. The new management approach focuses on establishing a new communication system that features a high level of employee involvement. Organizational structures must also be flexible enough to change with changing market conditions. Ongoing staff development programs and design-control procedures, which are understandable and acceptable, are outcomes from this new approach. Management values are changing, and managers must now have a vision and be able to communicate the vision to everyone in the firm.

Global competition has forced businesses to change how they manage at home and abroad. The increasing rate of change, technological advances, shorter product life cycles, and highspeed communications are all factors that contribute to these changes. The new management approach focuses on establishing a new communication system that features a high level of employee involvement. Organizational structures must also be flexible enough to change with changing market conditions. Ongoing staff development programs and design-control procedures, which are understandable and acceptable, are outcomes from this new approach.

Management values are changing, and managers must now have a vision and be able to communicate the vision to everyone in the firm.

Planning The first stage of international planning is to decide how to do business globally: whether to export, to enter into licensing agreements or joint ventures, or to operate as a multinational corporation with facilities in a foreign country. To develop forecasts, goals, and plans for international activities, the manager must monitor environments very closely. Key factors include political instability, currency instability, competition from governments, pressures from governments, patent and trademark protection, and intense competition. International firms should be sure that their plans fit the culture of the host country. Typically, U.S. firms feel that long-term plans should be three to five years in length; but in some cultures, this time period is too short. Many countries must plan with the assistance of governmental agencies. And working through bureaucratic structures, policies, and procedures is often time-consuming.

Organizing International businesses must be organized so that they can adapt to cultural and environmental differences. No longer can organizations just put “carbon copies” or clones of themselves in foreign countries. An international firm must be organized so that it can be responsive to foreign customers, employees, and suppliers. An entire firm may even be organized as one giant worldwide company that has several divisions. Above all, the new organization must establish a very open communication system where problems, ideas, and grievances can quickly be heard and addressed at all levels of management. Without this, employees will not get involved, and their insights and ideas are crucial to the success of the business. As an organization extends its operations internationally, it needs to adapt its structure. When the organization increases its international focus, it goes through the following three phases of structural change: 1. Pre-international stage. Companies with a product or service that incorporates the latest technology, is unique, or is superior may consider themselves ready for the international arena. The first strategy used to introduce a product to a foreign market is to find a way to export the product. At this phase, the firm adds an export manager as part of the marketing department and finds foreign partners. 2. International division stage. Pressure may mount through the enforcement of host country laws, trade restrictions, and competition, placing a company at a cost disadvantage. When a company decides to defend and expand its foreign market position by establishing marketing or production operations in one or more host countries, it establishes a separate international division. In turn, foreign operations begin, and a vice president, reporting directly to the president or CEO, oversees the operations. 3. Global structure stage. A company is ready to move away from an international division phase when it meets the following criteria: ○ The international market is as important to the company as the domestic market. ○ Senior officials in the company possess both foreign and domestic experience. ○ International sales represent 25 to 35 percent of total sales.

○ The technology used in the domestic division has far outstripped that of the international division. As foreign operations become more important to the bottom line, decision making becomes more centralized at corporate headquarters. A functional product group, geographic approach, or a combination of these approaches should be adopted. The firm unifies international activities with worldwide decisions at world headquarters.

Staffing Because obtaining a good staff is so critical to the success of any business, the hiring and development of employees must be done very carefully. Management must be familiar with the country's national labor laws. Next, it must decide how many managers and personnel to hire from the local labor force and whether to transfer home-based personnel. For example, U.S. firms are better off hiring local talent and using only a few key expatriates in most cases, because the costs of assigning U.S.–based employees to positions overseas can be quite expensive. Simply, expatriates (people who live and work in another country) are expensive propositions even when things go well. Adding up all the extras—higher pay, airfare for family members, moving expenses, housing allowances, education benefits for the kids, company car, taxes, and home leave—means that the first year abroad often costs the multinational company many times the expatriate's base salary. The total bill for an average overseas stay of four years can easily top $1 million per expatriate. In any case, managers need to closely examine how to select and prepare expatriates.

Directing Cultural differences make the directing function more difficult for the international manager. Employee attitudes toward work and problem solving differ by country. Language barriers also create communication difficulties. To minimize problems arising from cultural differences, organizations are training managers in cross-cultural management. Cross-cultural management trains managers to interact with several cultures and to value diversity. In addition, the style of leadership that is acceptable to employees varies from nation to nation. In countries like France and Germany, informal relations with employees are discouraged. In Sweden and Japan, however, informal relations with employees are strongly encouraged, and a very participative leadership style is used. Incentive systems also vary tremendously. The type of incentives used in the U.S. may not work in Europe or Japan, where stable employment and benefits are more important than bonuses.

Controlling Geographic dispersion and distance, language barriers, and legal restrictions complicate the controlling function. Meetings, reporting, and inspections are typically part of the international control system. Controlling poses special challenges if a company engages in multinational business because of the far-flung scope of operations and the differing influences of diverse environments. Controlling operations is nonetheless a crucial function for multinational managers. In many countries, bonuses, pensions, holidays, and vacation days are legally mandated and considered by many employees as rights. Particularly powerful unions exist in many parts of the world, and their demands restrict managers' freedom to operate. Read more: http://.cliffsnotes www.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Functions-ofthe-International-Manager.topicArticleId-8944,articleId8938.html#ixzz0W2DLhQS3

Personal Challenges for Global Managers Building an internationally competent workforce whose members know the business and are flexible and open-minded can take years. Multinational organizations can no longer rely on just a few managers with multicultural experience or a few experts on a particular country to succeed. In short, all employees must have some minimal level of international expertise and be able to recognize cultural differences that may affect daily business communications and working relationships.

In general, overseas managers share common traits with their domestic counterparts. Wherever a manager is hired, he or she needs the technical knowledge and skills to do the job, and the intelligence and people skills to be a successful manager. Selecting managers for expatriate assignments means screening them for traits that predict success in adapting to what may be dramatically new environments. Beyond the obvious job-specific qualifications, an organization needs to consider the following qualities and circumstances when selecting expatriates for positions in foreign countries: •

A willingness to communicate, form relationships with others, and try new things

•

Good cross-cultural communication and language skills

•

Flexibility and open-mindedness about other cultures

•

The ability to cope with the stress of new situations

•

The spouse's career situation and personal attributes

•

The existence of quality educational facilities for the candidate's children

•

Enthusiasm for the foreign assignment and a good track record in previous foreign and domestic moves

Of course, the factors that predict a successful expatriate assignment are not identical for everyone. These differences—which reflect variations in the expatriate's home culture, his or her company's human resource management practices, and the labor laws specific to the foreign country—must also be factored into the selection process. Even if these complexities are taken into account in the selection process, a person chosen for a foreign assignment may decide not to accept the job offer. The financial package needs to be reasonably attractive. In addition, family issues may be a concern. Most candidates, after a position is offered, also want information about how the foreign posting will impact their careers. If a potential candidate accepts the job offer, he or she should be aware of the potential for cultural shock—the confusion and discomfort a person experiences when in an unfamiliar culture. In addition, ethnocentrism, or the tendency to view one's culture as superior to others, should be understood and avoided. Read more: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/PersonalChallenges-for-Global-Managers.topicArticleId-8944,articleId8939.html#ixzz0W2DjTKTy

Intercultural Management - Lebanon Being a Manager in Lebanon To ensure successful cross cultural management in Lebanon, you need be aware of the strict protocols and rituals that exist. You may be able to relax your style over time as you develop a more personal relationship with your business colleagues. Lebanese business is in a state of flux. Many companies, eager for international investment and trade, have adopted Western business practices while others have not. If chosen carefully a local agent or representative may be advantageous when scheduling meetings with a company you have not done business with previously. Do not rush the process of hiring an agent as your company will be judged on the reputation of this person and they will be viewed as your organization when you are not in the country. After years of political turmoil, the international Lebanese business community is relatively small and your behavior will quickly become public knowledge. Therefore, it is important to behave in a businesslike manner at all times. The Role of a Manager

Lebanese will ask for and expect business associates to grant favors. It is in your best interest to agree even if you do not think that you will be able to comply. They will understand that circumstances prevented you from taking action, but their honor will be preserved by your agreement.

If you are holding meetings remember that praise should be given to the entire group and not to individuals. Approach to Change

Lebanon’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is low. Lebanon remains a low risk and low change-tolerant culture despite the apparent adoption of Western business practices. This means that change for its own sake is not necessarily considered a good thing, although in some circles it may be. Many older Lebanese continue to see change as a threat to the culture. Approach to Time and Priorities

Lebanon is a fluid time culture, and as is the case with many fluid time cultures, it is also very relationship-oriented. People in Lebanon will not want to upset others in order to force adherence to a deadline. When working with people from Lebanon, it’s advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines and how that may affect the rest of the organization. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met. Decision Making

Decisions are generally made at the top of the company or by the key stakeholder if the matter is technical. Even when it appears that there is an open discussion and opinions from all levels are being sought, the ultimate decision rests with the most senior person. This may change somewhat with multinational companies where the decision making process is in line with the corporate culture of that company rather than the more traditional Lebanese hierarchical model. Boss or Team Player

If you are working in Lebanon intercultural sensitivity is essential. It is important to remember that reputation plays an important role. The risk becomes amplified in a team or collaborative setting. If you would like to encourage participation it is important first to clearly establish a non-threatening work environment and communicate fully that their participation is desired. Successful cross cultural management will rely on the individual’s interpersonal skills and ability to maintain cordial relationships with their subordinates. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Effective cross cultural management will need to understand the importance placed on personal relationships. As in most Middle Eastern countries, good personal relationships are the cornerstone of successful business. Companies are hierarchical with the highest-ranking person making the decisions. . Decisions are reached slowly and if the government is involved, discussions will take even longer since approval must often be given by the ministers of several departments. Lebanese prefer not to give an overt “no” during negotiations and will often use elaborate language that says little to avoid saying something that could be contentious. Be prepared to offer concessions; however, do so with elaborate demonstrations of regret and reluctance. Asking for concessions in return brands you as a skilled negotiator.

Intercultural Management - Australia Being a Manager in Australia The business set up in Australia is egalitarian and to ensure successful cross cultural management it is important to remember to treat each and every person with equal respect and deference. Intercultural adaptability relies on the understanding that in Australia there is a sense that all people in the organization have an important role to play. Therefore, in this culture, managers will lose no respect in consulting employees to gather background information and even share in the decision-making process. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural communiciation will be more effective when working in Australia when you remember that the most productive managers in Australia recognize and value the specialised knowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization. Managers tend to be task-oriented, but do not generally micro-manage their staff. Managers emphasize achieving a goal, productivity and profits and expect their employees to do their job in a professional manner. Successful intercultural management will remember that the role of the leader is to harness the talent of the group assembled, and develop any resulting synergies. The leader will be deferred to as the final authority in any decisions that are made, but they do not dominate the discussion or generation of ideas. Praise should be given to the entire group as well as to individuals. Approach to Change

Australia’s intercultural competence and readiness for change is high. Businesses in Australia have a high tolerance for risk and a ready acceptance for change. The underlying mindset is that change, while difficult, usually brings improvements and that hard work and innovation will bring a better tomorrow. Risk-takers who fail are not deprived of future opportunities as failure is often perceived as a necessary step in the learning process. When discussing plan implementations, Australian managers will look for a proactive, success-oriented perspective with details about how to make the plan succeed. Without losing sight of the risk, managers are expected stay focused on the opportunity and the positive vision. Approach to Time and Priorities

Australia is a controlled-time culture, and adherence to schedules is important and expected. In Australia missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake people’s confidence. Since Australians respect schedules and deadlines, it is not unusual for managers to expect people to work late and even give up weekends in order to meet target deadlines. Successful intercultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines.

Decision Making

Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization. Not doing so may be significantly counterproductive because employees typically feel responsible for success beyond the execution of specific instructions. Boss or Team Player

The egalitarian belief of Australians supports a collaborative and participative management style. Australians are often quite comfortable working in teams and do not expect to be singled out for their contribution. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Australians are transactional and while it is not necessary to use an intermediary to make business introductions, at the same time, networking and relationship building can be an important factor to long-term business success. Most senior-level executives within an industry will know one another. Since the population of the country is relatively small and many people remain in the same town all their lives, people strive to develop harmonious working relationships as they never know when they will have to work with that person again. Successful cross cultural management will bear this in mind. Communication with employees is typically direct, often with a bit of humor. Avoid 'hard sell' techniques and do not misconstrue a relaxed attitude as indicative of a lack of attention to detail.

Being a Manager in Afghanistan The business set up in Afghanistan is extremely hierarchical and as such strictly defined roles exist. Managers in Afghanistan are often very paternalistic and relationships with their employees usually overlap into the personal sphere. You may find that managers in Afghanistan give their employees help and assistance with family and even money problems – loaning money where this is considered necessary. The concept of honour is extremely important and managers in Afghanistan will go to great lengths to protect the honour of their employees. They do this by ensuring that employees are always taken to one side to discuss issues as it would be considered great shame on behalf of the employee if other employees became aware of any issues being discussed. If someone is fairly close to them in status, then the manager will only speak to that individual indirectly about the issue, i.e. describing the issue as a third party act as opposed to something that the individual concerned may have done directly. Managers in Afghanistan rarely communicate the real reasons to an individual that is being dismissed. Again, this is to protect honour. They will typically tell the individual that the reason for their dismissal is due to budgeting problems for example. The role of a Manager in Afghanistan

Managers in Afghanistan are often fairly paternalistic and for this reason their involvement may extend outside of the workplace into the personal lives of their employees. The concept of personal strength is important to managers in Afghanistan and as such, it is key that you do not demonstrate any ‘weaknesses’.

Approach to change

The need to maintain the status quo and to mitigate any negative impacts on the ‘group’ is greatly valued in Afghanistan. For this reason, you are likely to find that managers in Afghanistan are averse to change. Change therefore takes considerable time to implement and decisions concerning change are preceded by a detailed analysis of risk. Managers in Afghanistan are only likely to follow through with changes if they believe that the change will not threaten the working cohesion of the team. You are unlikely to find people in Afghanistan who are inspired and motivated by opportunities for change. Decision Making

Since managers in Afghanistan are chosen on the basis of their advanced technical and broader business knowledge, then it is not considered appropriate for a manager to liaise with his / her subordinates when making business decisions. In fact, this would result in a loss of respect for managers in Afghanistan as employees may come to the conclusion that they have insufficient knowledge to make the decisions themselves. Decisions are typically made by the most senior person in an organisation in Afghanistan. Consequently, if a decision needs to be made, then it is more time efficient to direct the request to the most senior respective contact. Approach to time and priorities

Afghanistan is a fluid time culture, and as is the case with many fluid time cultures, it is also very relationship-oriented. People in Afghanistan will not want to upset others in order to force adherence to a deadline, and while appointments and schedules need to be set well in advance as a sign of respect for the individual, you need to understand that those schedules are seen as flexible, not necessarily needing to be adhered to. Nevertheless, because of the requirements of global business standards, local managers may understand and appreciate the important of adherence to schedules and deadlines. When working with people from Afghanistan, it’s advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines and how that may affect the rest of the organization. Boss or team player?

Due to the hierarchical set up in Afghanistan, it is important that the manager maintains his / her role as ‘boss’ as this engenders respect from within the team. When the manager needs to work collectively with his / her team however, then it is important that the need to work collectively is stated and that the team are encouraged to operate openly in a non-threatening environment. If contributions are made from a member of the team which are not useful / necessary to the discussion, then the manager will ensure that this is dealt with sensitively as to protect the honour of the individual. To do otherwise, would result in the individual feeling shamed and the rest of the team stepping back from participating. Communication and negotiation styles

The concept of ‘strength’ is important in Afghanistan and as such the win-lose mentality is prevalent. Managers in Afghanistan feel that compromise is a weakness and resist compromise even if it would be of mutual benefit to all concerned. Likewise, if a manager is trying to sell something then securing the highest price is testament to his / her strength.

Being a Manager in China The first thing you will notice when doing business in China is that all issues are looked at from the same vantage point - how will this benefit China or Chinese business. The Chinese always want to know what your company can do that they cannot already do for themselves. Communication is both formal and indirect. Since China is an extremely homogeneous country, there is much that can be said without using words. Cross cultural communication can often be difficult as westerners find it difficult to appreciate the subtleties of certain situations. The Role of a Manager

Successful cross cultural management in China is more likely if you bear in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. In general, the manager may function autocratically and dictate to his subordinates. At the same time, managers will not compliment or chastise an employee publicly. In fact, should they want to communicate bad news to their employees, they might use an intermediary. Approach to Change

Whereas China has traditionally had a medium tolerance for change and risk its intercultural adaptability is rapidly improving due to the increasing demands of the global marketplace. In the more traditional companies cross cultural sensitivity is essential as the fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure, still brings about aversion to risk. Any ideas raised by an individual need to be raised gently to avoid exposing that person. Approach to Time and Priorities

China is a moderate time culture and typically there may be some flexibility to strict adherence to schedules and deadlines. Nevertheless, the expectations of global and intercultural expansion have caused the Chinese to adopt relatively strict standards of adhering to schedules. Decision Making

Effective cross cultural management needs to bear in mind the hierarchy of this culture. There may be informal networking between employees themselves or supervisors and employees, although actual power is generally held in the hands of a few key people at the top of the organization. Although changing, China's ingrained bureaucracy is still evident in government offices and all but the most entrepreneurial companies. Departments tend to work quite independently of each other and only share selected information. Rivalries often exist within the same company. Boss or Team Player

In China there is a significant deference to authority and generally an inhibition to speaking out. This may be a particular challenge in a collaborative or team environment. More recently, this trait has been changing in the younger generations who have found employment in multinational companies and have embraced the idea of teamwork and participation.

Communication and Negotiation Styles

Make sure you bring along a senior level executive to be part of the negotiating team. The Chinese will enter a room based on rank and you must make sure you do the same. Only the most senior person will speak during discussions. Cross cultural success is more likely if you are aware of some of the negotiating tactics that are often deployed. These can include using silence to put pressure on you to concede points and delaying everything until the last minute so that you feel pressured to push things through quickly. It is worth maintaining your composure at these times. Under no circumstances should you lose your temper or you will lose face and irrevocably damage your relationship. Avoid cross cultural miscommunication by ensuring written material is available in both English and Chinese, using simplified characters and try to phrase your questions so that they require more than a yes or no response. This will allow you to make certain you were understood. It is imperative in writing contracts to have independent legal advice from someone intimately familiar with the business environment in China. Spell out everything. Do not overlook national laws and be extremely cautious about those you are choosing to do business with. It is worth checking the financial status of all related companies.

Being a Manager in Ethiopia The business set up in Ethiopia is formal and cross cultural management will be more successful if you adopt a formal demeanor and demonstrate deference to position, age, and rank. It is almost a cultural imperative to develop a personal relationship prior to conducting business. Any attempt to by-pass or rush what can be a time-consuming process could severely limit business success. Patience is a necessary attribute to successful cross cultural management. Never appear irritated by the time it takes to get things done. Things generally take much longer than expected. It often requires several meetings to accomplish what could be handled by a telephone call at home. The government exerts great influence in the business sector, particularly in matters pertaining to contracts and non-Ethiopian companies. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain cordial contact with government officials and agencies. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural management will be more effective if newcomers to the Ethiopian management style study carefully the corporate culture of specific companies because they may vary from being hierarchical to rather egalitarian. Consequently, employees will range from feeling empowered to speak out in the management process, to those who believe it is most important to simply execute the instructions by their leadership. Approach to Change

Ethiopia’s intercultural competence and readiness for risk is low. Ethiopia is a low risk and low change-tolerant culture. New projects will be carefully analyzed to assure that whatever risk they represent is thoroughly understood and addressed. In order for change to take hold, the idea needs to be perceived as good for the group and be accepted by the group. Intercultural sensitivity is important with Ethiopia’s attitude toward risk dramatically impacted by the negative ramifications of failure on both the individual and the group.

Approach to Time and Priorities

Ethiopia is a moderate time culture and typically and there may be some flexibility to strict adherence to schedules and deadlines. When working with people from Ethiopia, it’s advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines and how that may affect the rest of the organization. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met. Decision Making

Business is extremely hierarchical and employees are expected to show proper deference and respect towards those in superior positions. Managers do not seek a consensus before making decisions. As in many other relationship-driven cultures, Ethiopians do not strictly separate their personal and work lives. Managers often adopt a paternalistic role with their subordinates. They provide advice, listen to problems, and mediate disputes, both personal and business. Boss or Team Player?

If you are working in Ethiopia, it is important to remember that honor and reputation play an important role. The risk becomes amplified in a team or collaborative setting. If you would like to encourage participation it is important first to clearly establish a non-threatening work environment and communicate fully that their participation is desired. When meeting together and moderating ideas, intercultural sensitivity is required. It is important to qualify ideas that are raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of those bringing up ideas, so no one is shamed. If someone is exposed and embarrassed, they may likely not participate again, and it will stem the flow of ideas and the participation of the entire group. Praise should be given to the entire group, and not to individuals. Communication and Negotiation Styles

The social side of business is very important. Many companies are family-owned and therefore, extremely hierarchical. In most companies the highest ranking person makes decisions. Although negotiations may be conducted with lower-level staff, they are seldom granted full authority to make commitments for the company. Most business dealings involve the government in some fashion, which further lengthens the decision making since the ministers of several departments must often give approval. Do not criticize anyone publicly. It is important that you do not cause your Ethiopian business associates to lose dignity and respect. When granting a concession, do so with great reluctance and make it conditional on a concession from your Ethiopian counterparts. Delivery dates and deadlines are considered estimates rather than firm commitments since only God knows what the future holds.

Being a Manager in Hungary The business set up in Hungary is formal and hierarchical. Cross cultural management needs to adopt a formal approach and pay close attention to hierarchy and status. Hungarians are highly individualistic and proud of their personal accomplishments. They work exceedingly hard and will work extra hours to complete a job to the best of their ability. They enjoy

socializing with people from work and do not separate their business and personal lives as is done in many other cultures. The Role of a Manager

Newcomers to the Hungary management style should carefully study the corporate culture of specific companies because they may vary from being hierarchical to rather egalitarian. Consequently, employees will range from feeling empowered to speak out in the management process, to those who believe it is most important to simply execute the instructions by their leadership. Some employees in Hungary do not feel that they are authorized by station, education, or position, to either aspire to leadership or to express themselves freely in management circles. Nevertheless many do, and especially with the influence of globalization and intercultural expansion, organizations are tending to rely more heavily on the wisdom of their people and not just the direction of leadership. Approach to Change

Hungary’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is medium. Changes are made, albeit slowly, and require considerable amount of thought, planning and evaluation. It would be perceived as imprudent to introduce rapid change, and yet it would be recognized as poor management to resist change unnecessarily. Tradition is valued, thus change is not readily embraced simply because it is new. It is important for innovations to have a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented. The fear of exposure and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure mean intercultural sensitivity is needed. While in risk-tolerant environments, failure is perceived as a learning process that encourages confidence in future ventures, failure in Hungary causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by others. Approach to Time and Priorities

Hungary is a moderate time culture and typically and there may be some flexibility to strict adherence to schedules and deadlines. Nevertheless, the expectations of global business have caused the Hungarian to adopt relatively strict standards of adhering to schedules. Successful cross cultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to provide and enforce timelines. Decision Making

Hungarians are individualistic and therefore do not always work well in teams. If you plan to use a team, make sure that everyone understands that they have been selected because of their unique talent. Compliment individual members on a regular basis for their contributions. Conformity is not viewed as a positive attribute. Consensus is often seen as a sign of weakness. On the other hand, there is a strong tendency for managers to be autocratic in their leadership style. Boss or Team Player?

In post-communist countries, there is a tradition of teamwork inherited from the communal aspects of the previous era where groups and work units commonly met together to discuss ideas and create plans. However, those plans seldom resulted in implementation or results, leading to apathy and cynicism among the workers.

Today the after-effects are still evident among much of the older generation resulting in a lack of drive and energy. The younger generation will participate in teams and share ideas, but they will need to be coached in the process. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Business is conducted slowly so patience is a necessary cross cultural skill. Do not appear ruffled by the strict adherence to protocol. Hungarians are very detail-oriented and want to understand every innuendo before reaching an agreement. Do not remove your suit jacket without asking permission. Decision making can be prolonged as the person making the decision will often seek input from several stakeholders first. Maintain direct eye contact while speaking. Contracts should be clear and concise.

Being a Manager in France The business set up in France is egalitarian and to ensure successful cross cultural management it is important to remember to treat each and every person with equal respect and deference. In other words, in business it is safest to be formal and reserved in your behavior and expect that your French colleagues will be the same. Communication may be both formal and informal, depending upon the person you are dealing with and the relationship between you. The Role of a Manager

French business behavior emphasizes courtesy and a degree of formality. Chief executives of French companies often come from a select group of universities and share a similar background. Consequently, it is best to send a senior executive to initiate the relationship with the French decision-maker, especially if it is someone whose credentials and experience are comparable. Newcomers to the French management style should carefully study the corporate culture of specific companies because they may vary. Consequently, employees will range from feeling empowered to speak out in the management process, to those who believe it is most important to simply execute the instructions by their leadership. Approach to Change

France’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developing all the time. France is seen to have a medium tolerance for change and risk. It is important for innovations to have a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented. The fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure, brings about aversion to risk and the need to thoroughly examine the potential negative implications. While in risk-tolerant environments, failure is perceived as a learning process that encourages confidence in future ventures, failure in France causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by others. Because of this attitude, intercultural sensitivity is going to be required, especially when conducting group meetings and discussing contributions made my participating individuals. Approach to Time and Priorities

France is a controlled-time culture, and adherence to schedules is important and expected. In France missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake people’s confidence. People in controlled-time cultures tend to have their time highly scheduled, and it’s generally a good idea to provide and adhere to performance milestones.

Effective cross cultural management skill will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines. Decision Making

For effective cross cultural management it is important to remember that hierarchy is part of the French business culture. This is a country where rank has its privilege, often both literally and figuratively. Decision making is done at the highest levels, often without consultation with subordinates. Boss or Team Player

French like working in teams and collaborate quite well. The communication within a team is generally quite collegial, albeit somewhat direct and blunt. Role allocation within the team is generally quite clearly defined and people will take greater responsibility for their specific task than for the group as a whole. Successful cross cultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to harness the talent of the group assembled, and develop any resulting synergies. The leader will be deferred to as the final authority in any decisions that are made, but they do not dominate the discussion or generation of ideas. Praise should be given to the entire group as well as to individuals. Communication and Negotiation Styles

French business emphasizes courtesy and a fair degree of formality. Wait to be told where to sit as there may be a protocol to be followed. Although English may be spoken, it is a good idea to hire an interpreter so as to avoid any cross cultural misunderstandings. Business is conducted slowly. You will have to be patient and not appear ruffled by the strict adherence to protocol. Avoid confrontational behavior or high-pressure tactics as it can be counterproductive. The French will carefully analyze every detail of a proposal, regardless of how minute. The French are often impressed with good debating skills that demonstrate an intellectual grasp of the situation and all the ramifications. Never attempt to be overly friendly. The French generally compartmentalize their business and personal lives.

Being a Manager in Pakistan To ensure successful cross cultural management in Pakistan, you need be aware of the importance of maintaining a degree of formality at all times. Older people and those in senior positions should be deferred to and treated with dignity and respect. Status is important and it is a good idea to seek situations where you can flatter your colleagues. You must exercise patience in your business dealings. Things generally take longer than expected since meetings may be interrupted and patience will be necessary. Pakistanis are hospitable and enjoy hosting foreign guests. At the same time, they expect you to understand the rules of their country and obey them. Do not appear overly friendly when you are first introduced. Relationships take time to grow and must be nurtured. Pakistanis often ask personal questions as a way to get to know you as a person. If possible, it is best to answer these questions. Businesswomen will be asked about their marital status and the number of children they have.

The Role of a Manager

Successful cross cultural managers in Pakistan will remember that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. In Pakistan, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They may demonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace and strictly professional concerns. Approach to Change

Pakistan’s intercultural competence and readiness for risk is low. Pakistan is a low risk and low change-tolerant culture. New projects will be carefully analyzed to assure that whatever risk they represent is thoroughly understood and addressed. In order for change to take hold, the idea needs to be perceived as good for the group and be accepted by the group. Intercultural sensitivity is important with Pakistan’s attitude toward risk dramatically impacted by the negative ramifications of failure on both the individual and the group. Approach to Time and Priorities

Pakistan is a fluid time culture, and as is the case with many fluid time cultures, it is also very relationship-oriented. People in Pakistan will not want to upset others in order to force adherence to a deadline, and while appointments and schedules need to be set well in advance as a sign of respect for the individual, you need to understand that those schedules are seen as flexible, not necessarily needing to be adhered to. Successful cross cultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met. Decision Making

Pakistani managers tend to have a rather autocratic style. At the same time, the boss is seen as a paternalistic figure and is expected to assist subordinates with personal problems. Decisions are made at the top of the company and handed down to managers to implement. Although the decision maker may consult with technical experts before reaching a decision, he is not seeking consensus, simply sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. To ensure successful cross cultural management, you will need to bear in mind the importance of people in the office maintaining the proper behavior relative to their position. Boss or Team Player

If you are working in Pakistan, it is important to remember that honor and reputation play an important role. The risk becomes amplified in a team or collaborative setting. When meeting together and moderating ideas, intercultural sensitivity is necessary. It is important to qualify ideas that are raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of those bringing up ideas, so no one is shamed. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Cross cultural communication will be easier if you understand the importance of personal relationships in business. Being introduced by the proper people and making the right connections is extremely helpful. Pakistanis are non-confrontational and they will seldom say "no" overtly, so you must watch their non-verbal cues. It often takes several visits to

accomplish simple tasks. Pakistanis are highly skilled negotiators. Price is often a determining factor in closing a deal.

Being a Manager in Kenya The business set up in Kenya is very hierarchical and intercultural success is more likely if you remember to be formal and courteous at all times. Older people and those in senior positions should be deferred to and treated with utmost respect. Unlike many other cultures, Kenyans do not draw have a clear demarcation between business and personal relationships. Since they do business with those they know, they become friends with business associates. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural management needs to bear in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. People believe that their supervisors have been chosen because they have more experience and greater knowledge than those they manage, and it is, therefore, unnecessary, and even inappropriate for them to consult with lower-ranking individuals when decision-making. In Kenya, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They may demonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace and strictly professional concerns. This may include involvement in their family, housing, health, and other practical life issues. Approach to Change

Kenya’s intercultural competence and readiness for risk is low. New projects will be carefully analyzed to assure that whatever risk they represent is thoroughly understood and addressed. In order for change to take hold, the idea needs to be perceived as good for the group and be accepted by the group. Intercultural sensitivity is important with Kenya’s attitude toward risk dramatically impacted by the negative ramifications of failure on both the individual and the group. While in risk-tolerant environments, failure is perceived as a learning process that encourages confidence in future ventures, failure in Kenya causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by others. Because of this attitude, intercultural sensitivity is going to be required, especially when conducting group meetings and discussing contributions made my participating individuals. Approach to Time and Priorities

Deadlines and timescales are fluid. Patience is the key to successful intercultural management when working in Kenya. Essentially a relationship-driven culture, it should be understood that taking the time to get to know someone will always take precedence over any timelines. Don’t rush the relationship building process or you may jeopardise any future business dealings. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met. Decision Making

Managers rely on rules and regulations that employees obey without question and teamwork is a relatively new concept. In the past, employees preferred to work with others from the same ethnic origins. With the advent of more westernized business practices, managers must spend more time on team building strategies and guiding employees to treat each other with mutual respect.

Intercultural sensitivity is necessary and it is important never to chastise or criticize an employee publicly. When providing criticism, even under the guise of helpfulness, understand that employees are not comfortable with the concept of constructive criticism. Boss or Team Player?

If you are working in Kenya, it is important to remember that honor and reputation play an important role. Intercultural sensitivity is required; it is important to qualify ideas that are raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of those bringing up ideas, so no one is shamed. If someone is exposed and embarrassed, they may likely not participate again, and it will stem the flow of ideas and the participation of the entire group. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Wait to be told where to sit as there may be a seating plan. Good personal relationships are important since trust is required in order to conduct business. Companies are hierarchical. Ultimate decision-making often rests with a few key stakeholders at the top of the company. Getting decisions from government officials can be very protracted. Kenyans have a difficult time disagreeing, so do not think that things are going well simply because no one is challenging what you say. Proposals and contracts should be kept simple; however, it is a good idea to confirm all agreements in writing.

Being a Manager in Russia Intercultural adaptability is essential when working in Russia and you need to understand the importance of an open and honest approach. It is important to establish your credentials and authority quickly since Russians respect both status and technical expertise. Although they value firmness and dignity, it is advisable to appear approachable and friendly as well. Management in countries of the former Soviet Union is a complex, constantly evolving stateof-affairs, each country moving towards a market economy (with its accompanying protocols) at a different pace. Role of a Manager

Cross cultural communication will be more successful if you recognize that although Russians may initially appear stiff and reserved, they often warm up when socializing. Relationships are often developed in after-hours socializing. Most Russians do not trust people who are "all business". Meals and entertainment provide a venue to get to know you as a person. An indication that you have successfully developed a personal relationship is being asked for a favor by that person. Although courtesy is important in all business relationships, this is especially true in Russia. Businesspeople have long memories for behavior they deem insensitive. Small slights that might be overlooked elsewhere are remembered here. Approach to Change

Russia has a low tolerance for change and risk. Intercultural sensitivity is important as while in risk tolerant environments, failure is perceived as a learning process that encourages confidence in future ventures, failure in Russia causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by others.

Approach to Time and Priorities

Russia is a moderate time culture and traditionally schedules and deadlines are viewed as flexible. However, the expectations of intercultural and global expansion have caused the Russians to adopt relatively strict standards of adhering to schedules. When working with people from Russia, it’s advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines and how that may affect the rest of the organization. Successful cross cultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines. Decision Making

In general, many businesses retain a strong hierarchical structure. Employees show respect to those in positions of authority. Russians generally value age, rank, and protocol. Managers tend to be dictatorial and autocratic. They expect their subordinates to follow established procedures without question. Subordinates do not publicly challenge their manager, as it would make the manager lose dignity and respect. Managers are not comfortable empowering employees. Boss or Team Player

Cross cultural knowledge and understanding of the hierarchical system is essential. Successful intercultural management will understand the importance of maintaining their positions of authority. Subordinates are comfortable being dictated to as it is often the only way they have seen business conducted. Some younger, more entrepreneurial Russians may find the old ways tiring and time-consuming, especially if they have lived in a foreign country. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Meetings and negotiations are slow. Russians, especially middle-aged and older do not like being rushed. It takes time for Russians to become warm towards foreign businesspeople. In the first meeting it is best if you appear dignified and firm, yet approachable. Once a relationship is established, allow yourself to be seen as reliable, down to earth, and sincere. Hierarchy is important to Russians. Make sure you have written materials available in both English and Russian to avoid any possible cross cultural misunderstanding. Likewise, hire an interpreter if you need to. Be sure to bring all the copies of everything you need from your home country. Faxes, copy machines, and computers may not be readily available outside of Moscow. Russians are not always comfortable trying new ways of doing things. Do prepare your team in advance so that you have a unified front in the meeting. Russians may lose their temper, walk out of the meeting, or threaten to terminate the relationship in an attempt to coerce you to change your position. Careful minutes, called "protokol" should be taken during the meeting and signed at the end by everyone present. Nothing is final until the contract is signed. Even then, Russians will modify a contract to suit their purposes. Make sure you have an expert in Russian law review your contract thoroughly. Contracts should be translated into both Russian and English.

Being a Manager in Vietnam To ensure successful cross cultural management in Vietnam, it is essential to maintain harmonious relationships and be cognizant of the need for people to retain face in all transactions. In business it is important that you treat people with respect and deference at all times as this saves face. Public criticism or displaying anger causes a loss of face and may jeopardize future business relationships.

The business climate is undergoing a gradual transformation into market-orientation. Vietnamese companies are open to working with foreign firms. Some businesspeople remain suspicious of foreigners, perhaps as a holdover from the Communist regime. The government is undertaking a form of privatization, called "equitization" where companies are made public, with the government retaining a minority stake of about 20%. This means that many negotiations with private companies may entail dealing with a government agency as well. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural management is more likely to succeed when working in Vietnam, if you bear in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. People believe that their supervisors have been chosen because they have more experience and greater knowledge than those they manage, and it is, therefore, unnecessary, and even inappropriate for them to consult with lower-ranking individuals when decision-making. In Vietnam, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. Approach to Change

Vietnam’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for risk is minimal. Change is difficult to bring about and the idea of it is not received with enthusiasm. In order for change to take hold, the idea needs to be perceived as good for the group and be accepted by the group. Approach to Time and Priorities

Vietnam is very relaxed with its attitude towards schedules and timelines. Vietnamese will not upset others in order to force meeting a deadline, and while appointments and schedules need to be set in advance, these should be viewed as flexible. Patience is a necessary attribute to successful cross cultural management in Vietnam. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met. Decision Making

Although changing, Vietnam’s ingrained bureaucracy is still evident in government agencies and SOEs. Since this is a hierarchical culture, most decisions are made at the top and then given to the employees to implement. There may be informal networking among employees or between managers and subordinates, although actual power is generally held in the hands of a few key people at the top of the organization. Government or SOE employees are not comfortable taking initiative as they are risk averse as a result of years of communist rule so some cross cultural awareness is essential. Boss or Team Player

If you are working in Vietnam, it is important to remember that face and reputation play an important role. If you would like to encourage participation it is important first to clearly establish a non-threatening work environment and communicate fully that their participation is desired. When meeting together and moderating ideas, intercultural sensitivity is necessary. It is important to qualify ideas that are raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of those bringing up ideas, so no one is shamed.

Communication and Negotiation Styles

Personal relationships are required for successful business relationships. The initial meeting is viewed as an introductory meeting where you get to know one another. You should wait for your Vietnamese counterpart to raise the business subject. Many meetings are conducted in Vietnamese and to ensure you avoid any potential cross cultural miscommunication you will need a translator. Vietnamese put a higher value on keeping one’s word than on contracts. Never commit yourself verbally unless you are prepared to stand by your word. Negotiations move at a slow pace and patience will be a necessary cross cultural attribute. It is important to speak to all stakeholders, which often includes government officials. When recommending a proposal, it is a good idea to offer several ways the other party could structure the deal. Vietnamese like to consider options. Vietnamese are skilled negotiators.

Being a Manager in Romania In order to achieve successful cross cultural management in Romania it is important to understand some that it still governed by a great deal of bureaucracy. Therefore, personal relationships are crucial if you want to cut through the red tape. Although eager to move to a market economy, only about half the state-owned businesses have been privatized. Much business involves overlapping local bureaucracies, which make conducting business a time consuming process that requires perseverance. The legal framework is unclear and the judicial system is slow and bureaucratic. Commercial litigation is still in the embryonic stage and enforcing contracts can be difficult. The Role of a Manager

Successful intercultural management is more likely to be achieved if you keep in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. It is the expectation that supervisors have been chosen because they have more experience and greater knowledge. Therefore it is unnecessary, and even inappropriate for them to consult with lower-ranking individuals when decision-making. In Romania, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They may demonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace and strictly professional concerns. This may include involvement in their family, housing, health, and other practical life issues. Approach to Change

Romania’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is minimal. Change is difficult to bring about and the idea of it is not received with enthusiasm. The fear of exposure and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure means cross cultural sensitivity will be required. Failure can be viewed as a personal short-coming and can cause a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by the group. Approach to Time and Priorities

Romania is a moderate time culture and typically there may be some flexibility to strict adherence to schedules and deadlines. When working with people from Romania, in order to achieve successful cross cultural management, it is advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met.

Decision Making

In businesses that retain a strong hierarchical structure, managers tend to be autocratic. They expect their subordinates to follow standard procedures without question. In such companies, getting things accomplished is a matter of knowing the right people who can then help to circumvent the system and the bureaucracy. Older workers, perhaps as a holdover from the communist era, avoid admitting mistakes. This can lead to excessive delays in decision making. Younger employees are more willing to accept individual responsibility. Boss or Team Player

In post communist countries, there is a tradition of teamwork inherited from the communal aspects of the previous era where groups and work units commonly met together to discuss ideas and create plans. However, those plans seldom resulted in implementation or results, leading to apathy and cynicism among the workers. Today the after-effects are still evident among much of the older generation resulting in a lack of drive and energy. However, there is vibrancy among the younger generation, who seem to be eager to tackle many of the challenges and take the opportunities presented. They will participate in teams and share ideas, but intercultural sensitivity will be needed and it should be understood that they will need to be coached in the process. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Business moves at a slow pace. The society is extremely bureaucratic and patience will be a necessary cross cultural attribute. Business is hierarchical and the decision-making power is held at the top of the company. Most decisions require several layers of approval. At times it may appear that no one wants to accept responsibility for making the decision. Romanians are concerned about being taken advantage of by foreigners. Hire your own interpreters for meetings and negotiations to avoid any possible cross cultural miscommunication. Use local banks that are correspondents of western banks. Romanians have a tendency to tell others what they think they want to hear and decisions are easily reversed. Use an indirect negotiating style. Being too direct is viewed as rude.

Being a Manager in United States To ensure successful cross cultural management when working in the U.S., it is safest to treat all people with an equal amount of respect and deference (within the informal framework of America, in general), focus on schedules and maximizing time, and expect that people will want to be dealt with as individuals. In the U.S. there is a sense that all people in the organization have an important role to play and all are valued for their input. Therefore, managers consult employees to gather background information and often have them share in the decision-making process. The American working environment has changed drastically. With one eye on costs and the other on retention, employers are increasingly offering part-time or shared jobs, or outsourcing to external contractors. Change is constant as companies are restructured, work teams become "virtual," and flexible work arrangements become more common. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural communiciation will be more effective when working in United States when you remember that the most productive managers in United States recognize and value the specialized knowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization.

Approach to Change

Cross cultural management is more likely to succeed if you understand that businesses in the U.S. have a high tolerance for risk and a ready acceptance for change. The underlying mindset is that change, while difficult, usually brings improvements and enhancements with it. Approach to Time and Priorities

The U.S. is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansion has meant adherence to schedules is important and expected. Missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake people’s confidence. Successful intercultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines. Decision Making

American managers are viewed as facilitators--people who help employees do their best work--and not simply decision makers. They empower employees and expect them to take responsibility. Employees freely cross management levels and speak directly to senior managers. This freedom is particularly apparent at meetings, where everyone in attendance is encouraged to participate openly. Boss or Team Player

Cross cultural management is more likely to succeed if you understand the mindset behind the work force. In The United States, groups collaborate well together as teams. Members are generally chosen to participate based on tangible skills or the knowledge base they bring, and are equally welcome to contribute to any discussion that may arise. They are encouraged to generate new ideas that may further the direction of the plan or spawn a new track entirely. In successful, dynamic teams, all members are valued for their actual and potential contribution, and all are treated with equal respect. Communication and Negotiation Styles

The American negotiating style tends to be a "hard sell"—sometimes characterized as sledgehammer subtlety combined with missionary zeal. A strong pitch may sound boastful but is meant to inspire confidence and trust. It is also consistent with the penchant for logical reasoning, directness and comfort with self-promotion. American negotiators may have little familiarity with, or patience for, the formal business protocol, indirect communication style, or consensual decision-making practices of other countries (a fact that savvy international negotiators often use to their advantage). Their focus is on the short term and the "big picture" --securing the best deal in a timely manner. Their approach is informal, cordial and straightforward. The U.S. team will reveal its position and expect the other party to engage in a competitive bargaining process. If an impasse is reached, American tenacity, creativity, and persuasiveness will come to the fore. Despite the "hard sell" tactics, negotiating partners should not feel pressured into making a decision. The Americans expect their counterparts across the table to be similarly pragmatic and singleminded in trying to secure a favorable deal.

Being a Manager in United Kingdom To ensure successful cross cultural management should treat all people with respect and deference and to not waste anyone's time. This means that you should arrive at meetings prepared and ready to discuss the matter at hand. Expect your British colleagues to not be

very emotive with their facial expressions and word choices. And keep in mind, the British are known for their dry wit. In the UK, even though traditional organizations may be somewhat hierarchical, there is a sense that most people in the company have an important role to play and are valued for their input. Therefore, managers lose no respect by consulting employees to gather background information and or by sharing the decision-making process. More and more often, employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization, and not doing so may have a negative impact on moral for those who want to feel responsible for the success of the organization. The Role of a Manager

Cross cultural communiciation will be more effective when working in United Kingdom when you remember that the most productive managers in United Kingdom recognize and value the specialized knowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization. Approach to Change

The United Kingdom’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developing all the time. United Kingdom is seen to have a medium tolerance for change and risk. It is important for innovations to have a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented. The fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure, brings about aversion to risk and the need to thoroughly examine the potential negative implications so some intercultural sensitivity may be required. Approach to Time and Priorities

The UK is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansion has meant that adherence to schedules is important and expected. Missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake people’s confidence. People in controlled-time cultures tend to have their time highly scheduled, and it’s generally a good idea to provide and adhere to performance milestones. Since Brits respect schedules and deadlines, it is not unusual for managers to expect people to work late in order to meet target deadlines. Successful intercultural management will depend on the individual’s ability to meet deadlines. Decision Making

The management style in the United Kingdom is undergoing a metamorphosis, so you will find a variety of styles. In old-line businesses, the managing directors are the overall decisionmakers. In other industries, managers strive for consensus and make a concerted attempt to get everyone's input before a decision is reached. The manager may still make the ultimate decision, after consultation with the staff. Teamwork is becoming increasingly important in most organizations. Brits believe the best ideas and solutions often come from having many stakeholders meet to discuss an issue. They also prefer for the highest-ranking person to make the decision (and then perhaps clear it with someone at a higher level), so decision-making can be laborious. British managers will praise employees, although not generally in public. Subordinates expect their efforts to be recognized and rewarded. Most British are suspicious if praise is excessive or undeserved.

Boss or Team Player

In United Kingdom, groups collaborate well together as teams. Members are generally chosen to participate based on tangible skills or the knowledge base they bring, and are equally welcome to contribute to any discussion that may arise. They are encouraged to generate new ideas that may further the direction of the plan or spawn a new track entirely. In successful, dynamic teams, all members are valued for their actual and potential contribution, and all are treated with equal respect. Communication and Negotiation Styles

Communication will be direct and reserved. Avoid confrontational behavior or high-pressure tactics. Avoid displays of emotion and do not argue on the basis of feelings. Decision-making is slow and deliberate and so patience may be a necessary cross cultural attribute. It is a good idea to send a letter summarizing what was decided and what the next steps are. Marketing Dictionary: management Top Home > Library > Business & Finance > Marketing Dictionary 1. Collective administrative heads of a company, institution, business, etc., who are responsible for conducting the affairs of the company (institution, business, etc.) for meeting its short-range and long-range objectives, and for maintaining it as a profit-making organization and/or an ongoing enterprise. 2. Leading or supervising of an organization, business operation, or the like. 3. Wise use of means to accomplish a purpose. Business Encyclopedia: Management Top Home > Library > Business & Finance > Business Encyclopedia Throughout the years, the role of a manager has changed. Years ago, managers were thought of as people who were "the boss." While that might still be true today, many managers view themselves as leaders rather than as people who tell subordinates what to do. The role of a manager is comprehensive and often very complex. Not everyone wants to be a manager, nor should everyone consider being a manager. A Definition of Management Some would define management as an art, while others would define it as a science. Whether management is an art or a science isn't what is most important. Management is a process that is used to accomplish organizational goals; that is, a process that is used to achieve what an organization wants to achieve. An organization could be a business, a school, a city, a group of volunteers, or any governmental entity. Managers are the people to whom this management task is assigned, and it is generally thought that they achieve the desired goals through the key functions of (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) directing, and (4) controlling. Some would include leading as a managing function, but for the purposes of this discussion, leading is included as a part of directing. The four key functions of management are applied throughout an organization regardless of whether it is a business, a government agency, or a church group. In a business, which will be the focus here, many different activities take place. For example, in a retail store there are people who buy merchandise to sell, people to sell the merchandise, people who prepare the merchandise for display, people who are responsible for advertising and promotion, people who do the accounting work, people who hire and train employees, and several other types of workers. There might be one manager for the entire store, but there are other managers at

different levels who are more directly responsible for the people who perform all the other jobs. At each level of management, the four key functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling are included. The emphasis changes with each different level of manager, as will be explained later. Planning Planning in any organization occurs in different ways and at all levels. A top-level manager, say the manager of a manufacturing plant, plans for different events than does a manager who supervises, say, a group of workers who are responsible for assembling modular homes on an assembly line. The plant manager must be concerned with the overall operations of the plant, while the assembly-line manager or supervisor is only responsible for the line that he or she oversees. Planning could include setting organizational goals. This is usually done by higher-level managers in an organization. As a part of the planning process, the manager then develops strategies for achieving the goals of the organization. In order to implement the strategies, resources will be needed and must be acquired. The planners must also then determine the standards, or levels of quality, that need to be met in completing the tasks. In general, planning can be strategic planning, tactical planning, or contingency planning. Strategic planning is long-range planning that is normally completed by top-level managers in an organization. Examples of strategic decisions managers make are who the customer or clientele should be, what products or services should be sold, and where the products and services should be sold. Short-range or tactical planning is done for the benefit of lower-level managers, since it is the process of developing very detailed strategies about what needs to be done, who should do it, and how it should be done. To return to the previous example of assembling modular homes, as the home is nearing construction on the floor of the plant, plans must be made for the best way to move it through the plant so that each worker can complete assigned tasks in the most efficient manner. These plans can best be developed and implemented by the line managers who oversee the production process rather than managers who sit in an office and plan for the overall operation of the company. The tactical plans fit into the strategic plans and are necessary to implement the strategic plans. Contingency planning allows for alternative courses of action when the primary plans that have been developed don't achieve the goals of the organization. In today's economic environment, plans may need to be changed very rapidly. Continuing with the example of building modular homes in the plant, what if the plant is using a nearby supplier for all the lumber used in the framing of the homes and the supplier has a major warehouse fire and loses its entire inventory of framing lumber. Contingency plans would make it possible for the modular home builder to continue construction by going to another supplier for the same lumber that it can no longer get from its former supplier. Organizing Organizing refers to the way the organization allocates resources, assigns tasks, and goes about accomplishing its goals. In the process of organizing, managers arrange a framework that links all workers, tasks, and resources together so the organizational goals can be achieved. The framework is called organizational structure, which is discussed extensively in another article. Organizational structure is shown by an organizational chart, also discussed extensively in another article. The organizational chart that depicts the structure of the organization shows positions in the organization, usually beginning with the top-level manager (normally the president) at the top of the chart. Other managers are shown below the president. There are many ways to structure an organization, which are discussed extensively in the articles referred to previously. It is important to note that the choice of structure is important for the type of organization, its clientele, and the products or services it provides—all which influence the goals of the organization.

Directing Directing is the process that many people would most relate to managing. It is supervising, or leading workers to accomplish the goals of the organization. In many organizations, directing involves making assignments, assisting workers to carry out assignments, interpreting organizational policies, and informing workers of how well they are performing. To effectively carry out this function, managers must have leadership skills in order to get workers to perform effectively. Some managers direct by empowering workers. This means that the manager doesn't stand like a taskmaster over the workers barking out orders and correcting mistakes. Empowered workers usually work in teams and are given the authority to make decisions about what plans will be carried out and how. Empowered workers have the support of managers who will assist them to make sure the goals of the organization are being met. It is generally thought that workers who are involved with the decision-making process feel more of a sense of ownership in their work, take more pride in their work, and are better performers on the job. By the very nature of directing, it should be obvious that the manager must find a way to get workers to perform their jobs. There are many different ways managers can do this in addition to empowerment, and there are many theories about the best way to get workers to perform effectively and efficiently. Management theories and motivation are important topics and are discussed in detail in other articles. Controlling The controlling function involves the evaluation activities that managers must perform. It is the process of determining if the company's goals and objectives are being met. This process also includes correcting situations in which the goals and objectives are not being met. There are several activities that are a part of the controlling function. Managers must first set standards of performance for workers. These standards are levels of performance that should be met. For example, in the modular home assembly process, the standard might be to have a home completed in eight working days as it moves through the construction line. This is a standard that must then be communicated to managers who are supervising workers, and then to the workers so they know what is expected of them. After the standards have been set and communicated, it is the manager's responsibility to monitor performance to see that the standards are being met. If the manager watches the homes move through the construction process and sees that it takes ten days, something must be done about it. The standards that have been set are not being met. In this example, it should be relatively easy for managers to determine where the delays are occurring. Once the problems are analyzed and compared to expectations, then something must be done to correct the results. Normally, the managers would take corrective action by working with the employees who were causing the delays. There could be many reasons for the delays. Perhaps it isn't the fault of the workers but instead is due to inadequate equipment or an insufficient number of workers. Whatever the problem, corrective action should be taken. Managerial Skills To be an effective manager, it is necessary to possess many skills. Not all managers have all the skills that would make them the most effective manager. As technology advances and grows, the skills that are needed by managers are constantly changing. Different levels of management in the organizational structure also require different types of management skills. Generally, however, managers need to have communication skills, human skills, computer skills, time-management skills, and technical skills. Communication Skills Communication skills fall into the broad categories of oral and written skills, both of which managers use in many different ways. It is necessary for a manager to orally explain processes and give direction to workers. It is also necessary for managers to give verbal praise to workers. Managers are also expected to conduct meetings and give talks to groups of people.

An important part of the oral communication process is listening. Managers are expected to listen to their supervisors and to their workers. A manager must hear recommendations and complaints on a regular basis and must be willing to follow through on what is heard. A manager who doesn't listen is not a good communicator. Managers are also expected to write reports, letters, memos, and policy statements. All of these must be written in such a way that the recipient can interpret and understand what is being said. This means that managers must write clearly and concisely. Good writing requires good grammar and composition skills. This is something that can be learned by those aspiring to a management position. Human Skills Relating to other people is vital in order to be a good manager. Workers come in about every temperament that can be imagined. It takes a manager with the right human skills to manage this variety of workers effectively. Diversity in the workplace is commonplace. The manager must understand different personality types and cultures to be able to supervise these workers. Human skills cannot be learned in a classroom; they are best learned by working with people. Gaining an understanding of personality types can be learned from books, but practice in dealing with diverse groups is the most meaningful preparation. Computer Skills Technology changes so rapidly it is often difficult to keep up with the changes. It is necessary for managers to have computer skills in order to keep up with these rapid changes. Many of the processes that occur in offices, manufacturing plants, warehouses, and other work environments depend on computers and thus necessitate managers and workers who can skillfully use the technology. Although computers can cause headaches, at the same time they have simplified many of the tasks that are performed in the workplace. Time-Management Skills Because the typical manager is a very busy person, it is important that time be managed effectively. This requires an understanding of how to allocate time to different projects and activities. A manager's time is often interrupted by telephone calls, problems with workers, meetings, others who just want to visit, and other seemingly uncontrollable factors. It is up to the manager to learn how to manage time so that work can be completed most efficiently. Good time-management skills can be learned, but managers must be willing to prioritize activities, delegate, deal with interruptions, organize work, and perform other acts that will make them better managers. Technical Skills Different from computer skills, technical skills are more closely related to the tasks that are performed by workers. A manager must know what the workers who are being supervised are doing on their jobs or assistance cannot be provided to them. For example, a manager who is supervising accountants needs to know the accounting processes; a manager who is supervising a machinist must know how to operate the equipment; and a manager who supervises the construction of a home must know the sequence of operations and how to perform them. Management Thought There are many views of management, or schools of management thought, that have evolved over the years. What follows is a brief discussion of some of the theories of management that have greatly affected how managers manage today. Classical Thought The classical school of management thought emerged throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Since the beginning of time, managers have needed to know how to perform the functions discussed earlier. The Industrial Revolution emphasized the importance of better management as organizations grew larger and more complex. As industry developed, managers had to develop systems for controlling inventory, production, scheduling, and human resources. It was the managers who emerged during the Industrial Revolution, many who had backgrounds in engineering, who discovered that they needed organized methods in order to find solutions to problems in the workplace.

Classical management theorists thought there was one way to solve management problems in the industrial organization. Generally, their theories assumed that people could make logical and rational decisions while trying to maximize personal gains from their work situations. The classical school of management is based on scientific management which has its roots in Henri Fayol's work in France and the ideas of German sociologist Max Weber. Scientific management is a type of management that bases standards upon facts. The facts are gathered by observation, experimentation, or sound reasoning. In the United States, scientific management was further developed by individuals such as Charles Babbage (1792–1871), Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915), and Frank (1868–1924) and Lillian (1878–1972) Gilbreth. Behavioral Management Thought It was because the classical management theorists were so machine-oriented that the behavioralists began to develop their thinking. The behavioral managers began to view management from a social and psychological perspective. These managers were concerned about the well-being of the workers and wanted them to be treated as people, not a part of the machines. Some of the early behavioral theorists were Robert Owen (1771–1858), a British industrialist who was one of the first to promote management of human resources in an organization; Hugo Munsterberg(1863–1916), the father of industrial psychology; Walter Dill Scott (1869– 1955), who believed that managers need to improve workers' attitudes and motivation in order to increase productivity; and Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who believed that a manager's influence should come naturally from his or her knowledge, skill, and leadership of others. In the behavioral management period, there was a human relations movement. Advocates of the human relations movement believed that if managers focused on employees rather than on mechanistic production, then workers would become more satisfied and thus more productive laborers. Human relations management supported the notion that managers should be paternalistic and nurturing in order to build work groups that could be productive and satisfied. The behavioral science movement was also an important part of the behavioral management school. Advocates of this movement stressed the need for scientific studies of the human element of organizations. This model for management emphasized the need for employees to grow and develop in order to maintain a high level of self-respect and remain productive workers. The earliest advocates of the behavioral science movement were Abraham Maslow (1908–1970), who developed Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and Douglas McGregor (1906– 1964), who developed Theory X and Theory Y. These theories are discussed in depth in other articles. Contemporary Management Thought In more recent years, new management thoughts have emerged and influenced organizations. One of these is the sociotechnical system. A system is a set of complementary elements that function as a unit for a specific purpose. Systems theorists believe that all parts of the organization must be related and that managers from each part must work together for the benefit of the organization. Because of this relationship, what happens in one part of the organization influences and affects other parts of the organization. Another contemporary approach to managing involves contingency theories. This approach states that the manager should use the techniques or styles that are most appropriate for the situation and the people involved. For example, a manager of a group of Ph.D. chemists in a laboratory would have to use different techniques from a manager of a group of teenagers in a fastfood restaurant. Closed Management Systems Within the classical and behavioral approaches to management, the managers look only within the organization to improve productivity and efficiency. This is a closed system—the organization operates as though it is in its own environment. Outside influence and information are blocked out.

Open Management Systems Another perspective is the open system. As one would expect, here the organization functions in conjunction with its external environment, acting with and relying upon other systems. Advocates of an open system believe that an organization cannot avoid the influence of outside forces. Summary Management is a very complex process to which this article is but a brief introduction. Many other articles in this encyclopedia provide extensive insight into the many aspects of management. Bibliography Nickels, William G., McHugh, James M., and McHugh, Susan. (1987). Understanding Business. Chicago: Irwin. Pierce, Jon L., and Dunham, Randall B. (1990). Managing. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education. [Article by: ROGER L. LUFT] Thesaurus: management Top Home > Library > Literature & Language > Thesaurus noun 1. Authoritative control over the affairs of others: administration, direction, government,

superintendence, supervision. See over/under. 2. The careful guarding of an asset: conservancy, conservation, husbandry, preservation.

See keep/release. 3. An act or instance of guiding: direction, guidance, lead, leadership. See

affect/ineffectiveness.

Antonyms: management Top Home > Library > Literature & Language > Antonyms n Definition: persons running an organization Antonyms: employees, workers

Hacker Slang: management Top Home > Library > Technology > Hacker Slang 1. Corporate power elites distinguished primarily by their distance from actual productive work and their chronic failure to manage (see also suit). Spoken derisively, as in “Management decided that ...”. 2. Mythically, a vast bureaucracy responsible for all the world's minor irritations. Hackers' satirical public notices are often signed ‘The Mgt’; this derives from the Illuminatus novels (see the Bibliography in Appendix C).

Dental Dictionary: management Top Home > Library > Health > Dental Dictionary n The planning, organizing, directing, and controlling of the enterprise’s operation so that objectives can be achieved economically and efficiently through others. Economics Dictionary: management Top Home > Library > Business & Finance > Economics Dictionary The body of individuals who run major businesses, usually without owning them but often with the reward of stock options.