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 democratic—we all have the same amount of time.

Time is perishable. Time is a nonrenewable resource. Time is even
more valuable than money, because one can always get more
money; however, once time 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, direction-

setting, 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: Neal-

Schuman 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
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
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
• 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
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:
• 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.
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)
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 ever-
changing
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 geography-
related
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 face-
toface
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 e-
business
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 90-
day
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 5-
point
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 CONTEXT
• Jean Brittain Leslie
• Maxine Dalton
• Chris Ernst
• Jennifer Deal
• 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 PI-
R ................................................... 22
• Table 2.2 Personality Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers in Low
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Effectiveness for Company B ........................................................................................... 60
• Effectiveness for Company C ........................................................................................... 60
• 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
• (Personality) ...................................................................................................................... 21
• viii Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context
• (Managerial Capabilities).................................................................................................. 29
• (Experience) ...................................................................................................................... 43
• (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.
•
• 1
• 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 Hay-
McBer
• 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
• 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
• _
• _
• _
• _
• 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. Twenty-
five
• 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 low-
or
• 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-global-
complexity
• 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
highglobal-
• complexity group had been in their current jobs for less than a year. Managers in the
highglobal-
• complexity 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-global-
complexity
• 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-global-
complexity
• 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
• 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
• 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 (self-
development,
• 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.
• 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
• (Managerial Roles)
• monitor
• spokesperson
• leader
• liaison
• decision maker
• innovator
• negotiator
• Personality
• Experience
• Managerial
• Capabilities
• Managerial
• Effectiveness
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• 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
• 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.
• 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
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
• 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 high-
globalcomplexity
• 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 low-
globalcomplexity
• jobs did not differentiate in the level of importance attributed to the roles of monitor,
• 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.
• 19
• Table 1.2
• Role-Behavior 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
• 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
• 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
highglobal-
• complexity 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
highglobal-
• complexity 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 high-
globalcomplexity
• 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
effec-
• 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
• (Personality)
• Personality
• conscientiousness
• extraversion
• openness
• agreeableness
• neuroticism
• Experience
• Managerial
• Capabilities
• Managerial
• Effectiveness
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• 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
Five-
• Factor 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
manage-
• 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 meta-
analytic
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
when the
• 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.
• 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
• 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
when the
• 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 senior-
level
• 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.
• Chapter 3: Managerial Capabilities—Learning and Effectiveness as a Global Manager
• Figure 4
• (Managerial Capabilities)
• Personality
• Experience
• Managerial
• Capabilities
• learning behaviors
• knowledge
• resilience
• Managerial
• Effectiveness
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• 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.”
• 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 high-
globalcomplexity
• 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 ever-
changing
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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-global-
complexity
• condition.
• Table 3.1
• Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers
• in Low and High Global Contexts
when the
• Table 3.2
• Learning Behavior Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers
• 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
• Cultural
• adaptability –.22a .02 –.11a .15 .28
• Perspective
• taking .11a .11 .18a .32 .17
when the
• Cultural
• adaptability .11 .11 .11 .14 .19
• Selfdevelopment
• .14a .05a .19a .19a .18a
• Perspective
• taking .06 .05 .04 .11 .17
• 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
• Business
• knowledge .07 .03 .14a .17a .06
• International
• business
• knowledge .07 .14 .13 .11 .14
• Insightful .07 .001 .19a .24a .12
• Business
• knowledge –.04 –.10 .32a .19a –.02
• International
• business
• knowledge .11 –.02 .37a .21a .11
• Insightful –.009 –.14 .18a .14a –.06
when the
• Table 3.4
• Knowledge Scale Correlations with Personality Scales for Managers
• Low global
• context
• Business
• knowledge –.13 .16 .01 –.14 .29a
• International
• business
• knowledge –.09 .13 .01 –.19 .20a
• High global
• context
• Business
• knowledge –.44 .19 –.04 –.01 .36a
• International
• business
• knowledge –.23 .07 –.05 .00 .34a
when the
• 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.
• 41
• Table 3.5
• Resilience Scale Correlations with Effectiveness Ratings for Managers
• Coping .14 .02 .12 .22 .17
• Integrity –.02a –.02a .07 .19 .17
• Coping .08a .05a .36a .26a .16a
• Integrity –.05a .10a .09 .03 –.02
when the
• 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
• Low global
• context
• Coping –.34a .23 .03 .01 .18
• High global
• context
• Coping –.50a .22 .15 .16 .17
when the
• Capabilities importance. Both independent sample t-tests and nonparametric Mann–
• Whitney U analyses were conducted to test for mean differences reported by low- and
highglobal-
• complexity 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
• 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.
• Chapter 4: Experience—Cosmopolitanism and Managerial Effectiveness in a Global Context
• Figure 5
• (Experience)
• Personality
• Experience
• cosmopolitanism
• cultural heterogeneity
• organizational cohort
• homogeneity
• Managerial
• Capabilities
• Managerial
• Effectiveness
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• _
• 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
• 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.
• 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 local-
boss
• 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
• 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
• 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
when the
• 49
• Table 4.2
• Early Life and Adult Life Experience Correlations with Personality Scales
• Low global
• context
• 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
• 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
when the
• 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
• 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
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 long-
term
• 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 out-
group
• 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
• 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).
• 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.
• 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 senior-
level
• 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.
• 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.
• 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). Zero-
order
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Managerial Effectiveness for Company B
• 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
• Managerial Effectiveness for Company C
• 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
• Managerial Effectiveness for Company D
• 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
• 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
• (Revised)
• 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
• 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 high-
globalcomplexity
• 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.
• 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 cognitive-
motivational
• 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.
• 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: Prentice-
Hall.
• 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
• 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 public-
and
• 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
• 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
• 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:
Jossey-
• Bass.
• 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 Cross-
• Cultural 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 81
• 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.
• 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.
• Appendix B
• 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.
• 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.
• Appendix B
• 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)
• 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.
• 85
• Appendix C:
• Alphas and Intercorrelations Among FFM, International Experience, Role Behaviors,
and Performance Variables (Boss 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 -.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
• 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
• 87
• Appendix E:
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
• Appendix E
• Appendix F:
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
• 22 Interpersonal relations .80 .45 .67
• 89
• Appendix G:
• Hypotheses Organized by Questions of Interest
• What do global managers do?
• 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
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)
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)
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?
• 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
• 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.
• Appendix G
• Experience
• [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 high-
speed 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 high-
speed 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-of-

the-International-Manager.topicArticleId-8944,articleId-
8938.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/Personal-

Challenges-for-Global-Managers.topicArticleId-8944,articleId-
8939.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 state-
of-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 single-
minded 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.
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.
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 decision-
makers.
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 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.

Moni Manager

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Moni Manager

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

What is My Role as a Manager?

achieve far more than managers who only find fault.

II. Becoming a Manager within a Special Library:

Individuality arises with the need to be flexible and adaptive to the

Managing your time:

Time is democratic—we all have the same amount of time.

II. Understanding the Responsibility:

Managing the Organization Responsibility:

The manager is the individual most identified with her/his area of

Mastering the Communication Responsibility:

In today’s work environments, managers must be able to communicate effectively

Also, watch out for nonverbal communication. Nonverbal communication involves

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:

performance and prepare a funding request.

allocations. Make any necessary adjustments in order to stay on budget.

problem or just change in workload

for future budget requests.

The concept of managing diversity covers a range of groups, from persons

A climate of trust supports individuals and where individuals take a

Diversity management involves leadership commitment and involvement, direction-

Your Support Staff:

Many paraprofessionals possess a wealth of knowledge about a particular

Appraisal tools and Manage Performance:

The employee information will often include the employee’s name,

Bridges, Karl. Expectations of Librarians in the 21st Century. Westport, Connecticut:

Mosley, Pixey. Transitioning from Librarian to Middle Manager. Westport, Connecticut:

Evans, G. Edward. Performance Management and Appraisal. New York: Neal-

Blumenstein, Lynn. "Librarian as CM LEA." Library Journal (2005): 38-40.

Margulies, Patricia. "Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship."

Yamazaki, Hisamichi. "Changing Society, Role of Information Professionals and

Role Definition and Organizational Structure:

Role Description Identifiable activities

Today's managers must be supportive facilitators. They still need to be directive

Read more: file:///C:/Documents%20and

2003 Excellence in Practice Award

Synucleins: Parkinson R&D

Book Everyone Should Read

ICT Innovation in Europe

Employee Motivation PDF

1. Top Level of Management

2. Middle Level of Management

Choose your focus

The schedule also includes...

Who else will be there

Our client is a leading food & beverage company in a multinational

Functions of the International Manager

Read more: http://.cliffsnotes www.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Functions-of-

Read more: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Personal-

Intercultural Management - Lebanon

Being a Manager in Lebanon

Being a Manager in Australia

Being a Manager in Afghanistan