A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
within Asian and Western European Countries
Robert G. Hamlin
University of Wolverhampton, UK
Sewon Kim
State University of New York (SUNY) Empire State College, USA
Corresponding Author: Prof Bob Hamlin
Email:
r.g.hamlin@wlv.ac.uk
Submission Type: Refereed Full Paper
Copyright © 2015 Robert G. Hamlin & Sewon Kim
1
ABSTRACT
Purpose-To explore the extent to which behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness previously identified in multiple South Korean private sector companies and a Chinese forprofit-like state enterprise, are different (local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/contextgeneral) to those identified within British and German private sector companies.
Design/methodology-Empirical data were obtained from past emic replication studies (cases) carried out
in China, Germany, South Korea and the United Kingdom respectively. The behavioural indicators were
subjected to realist qualitative comparative analysis using open and axial coding to identify, classify, and
group them into discrete behavioural categories.
Findings-High degrees of overlap and convergence were revealed with the vast majority of managerial
behaviours (91.85% Asian; 95.23% Western European) that distinguish effective managers from ineffective
managers being found to be the same, similar, or congruent in meaning. Only 1 out of 11 non-convergent
Asian behavioural indicators showed any evidence of being local/context-specific and thus culturally
embedded.
Research Implications- The findings bring into question the validity of past claims in the cross-cultural
management literature which assert that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership behaviour
are contingent upon the cultural aspects of specific societies and countries.
Practical/social implications- HRD practitioners in all four countries and those in multinational
corporations could utilize the findings to inform the creation of new management or leadership development
programmes, or to critically evaluate extant programmes.
Originality/value-Our study is a rare example of Type 4 indigenous management research, and our findings
are illustrative of what has become known as geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Keywords: Management, leadership, perceived effectiveness, cross-nation comparison
2
A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
within Asian and Western European Countries
The vast majority of management research conducted outside the USA continues to be “normal
science” (Kuhn, 1996: p.5) based on the North American positivist (functionalist) research
paradigm. And the preference of most international and indigenous researchers who have explored
local phenomena, particularly in China and other Asian countries, has been to conduct deductive
studies using extant Western theories, constructs, and methods drawn from management literature
dominated by US research (see Leung, 2007; Leung and White, 2004; Tsui, 2006; White, 2002).
Tsui (2009) considers this tendency to be a cause for concern because it risks researchers making
discoveries that only fall within the domain covered by theory derived in the USA. Furthermore,
she argues that such research may be insufficient to provide understanding of novel contexts, or
may even lead to biased or inaccurate conclusions (Tsui, 2007). A similar situation exists
regarding leadership research. As Zhang et al. (2012) perceived from a Chinese perspective,
drawing on Yukl (2010), almost all leadership studies throughout a century-long history have been
conducted in the West (predominantly in North America and particularly the USA), and almost all
leadership theories have been derived within Western cultural contexts which, according to these
authors, make them very limited in their applicability to different economies and cultures
A few notable non-normal science studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness have
been carried out around the globe, including for example (i) Cammock et al., (1995) qualitative
‘repertory grid’ study of managerial effectiveness within a large public sector organization in New
Zealand, (ii) the nine qualitative ‘critical incident technique-CIT’ studies of managerial and
leadership effectiveness that Author 1 has carried out and replicated with various co-researchers
in a diverse range of public, private, and third sector organizations in the United Kingdom (UK)
3
(see Hamlin and Hatton, 2013); (iii) the subsequent replication of these UK studies by Hamlin et
al. in various other countries such as Egypt (Hamlin et al., 2010), Mexico (Hamlin et al., 2011),
Romania (Hamlin and Patel, 2012) and South Korea (Chai et al., 2015), and by Wang (2011) in
China, and (iv) the multiple cross-case/cross-nations comparative studies of Hamlin and Hatton
(2013) and Patel and Hamlin (2012) using as empirical source data the findings of their previous
emic replication research which led to the emergence of a British-related and EU-related taxonomy
of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, respectively.
Our study builds on this past research. It is a non-normal science cross-case/cross-nation
comparison of findings obtained from two published Asian emic replication studies of perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness, namely our recent South Korean study (Chai et al., 2015),
and Wang’s (2011) equivalent study carried out within a Chinese state owned enterprise (for-profit
like), against the findings of five equivalent published European based replication studies, namely
two British and three German inquiries conducted by Author 1 with various indigenous coresearchers. As active participants in these source studies we have had privileged access to all of
the empirical evidence generated, and we have used this as the source data for the present study.
Our primary aim has been to explore the extent to which the behavioural indicators of perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness resulting from the source studies are different
(local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/context-general) to each other. The central
question we addressed was as follows: “To what extent are the managerial behaviours that
distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers, as observed and perceived by managers
and non-managerial employees within multiple South Korean for-profit companies and a Chinese
for-profit-like enterprise, similar or different to those perceived by managers and non-managerial
employees within British and German for-profit companies?”
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
To address the research purpose, this section first discusses current concerns and criticisms of
indigenous management research in Asia, and current debates concerning culture and
management/leadership effectiveness research. An introduction to the theory that has guided the
research and the empirical source studies upon which it is based then follows, and the section
concludes with a statement of the primary aim of the study and the specific research question that
was addressed. At this juncture readers should note that our use of the word ‘leadership’ in the
term ‘managerial and leadership effectiveness’ refers to the everyday ‘supervisory leadership’
performed by managers at all levels of management, and not to House et al.’s (2004) concept of
‘strategic leadership’ as performed by general managers and other top managers/organizational
leaders.
Indigenous Management Research in Asia
During the past 5 years there have been numerous calls for papers on indigenous management
research in Asia, and particularly in China (Holtbrugge et al., 2011; Li et al., 2014; Lyles, 2009).
However, what qualifies as indigenous research is still open to debate because there is no widely
accepted definition. Some researchers suggest a study is indigenous if it covers an indigenous
topic, even if based on the philosophical assumptions of the North American research paradigm
(Whetton, 2009), whereas others argue that indigenous research is any single country study that is
context-specific as a result of either incorporating aspects of the national context in the theory and
methods, or by taking the national context as granted which is the case for research conducted in
the USA (Tsui, 2007). According to Lyles (2009), and also to Li (2012), in general indigenous
research is the study of a unique local phenomenon, or a unique element of any local phenomenon
from
a
local
(native-emic)
perspective,
that
5
aims
to
explore/examine
its
local
implications/relevance and/or its global (etic) implications/relevance. Li et al. (2014) similarly
define indigenous research in a broad sense to encompass context-specific or context sensitive
approaches to the exploration of unique local phenomena that may have global implications. To
clarify the diverse nature of indigenous research, both Lyles (2009) and Li et al. (2012) have
offered a typology comprised of four types/stages of sophistication/advancement, the applicability
of which depends on the nature of the local phenomenon to be studied, and/or the source of the
adopted theoretical and/or paradigmatic perspective. These are as follows: Type 1 (Emic-as-etic
or Imposed etic with mostly Western content). This is the most basic and most common approach,
and involves a naïve/uncritical application of extant theories from the West in a local context.
Type 2 (Etic-to-Emic with imbalanced Western-Eastern content). This is a more advanced
approach involving a cross-context comparative component with the potential to discover one or
more novel constructs unique to the local phenomenon. Type 3 (Emic-as-emic with mostly
Eastern content). This is an innovative approach involving the identification and development of
novel local constructs to explain local phenomena. Type 4 (Emic-and-etic integration with well
balanced local-global or Eastern-Western content). This is the most advanced approach involving
an integration of the emic theories resulting from Type 2 and Type 3 studies carried out in different
local/cultural contexts, with the aim of building cross-cultural constructs/theories, and thereby
develop geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Culture and Managerial/Leadership Effectiveness Research
Extant literature provides evidence for both universal and contingent approaches to studying
management and leadership behaviours. The universal approach assumes that behaviours which
managers need to demonstrate in order to be perceived effective or ineffective are independent of
national culture (Arvonen and Ekvall, 1999; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002). And House
6
and Aditya (1997) have argued the existence of universal/nearly universal effective leader
behaviours (see also Bennis, 1999; Robie et al., 2001). Similarly, Bass (1996) and Bass and Riggio
(2006) have argued that very little of the variance in leader behaviour can be justified by culture,
and that there is far more universalism in leadership than has been believed previously. However,
despite strong and compelling logic, empirical evidence supporting notions of the universality of
managerial and leadership effectiveness is sparse.
In contrast, the contingency approach supports the view that managers and leaders need to
adapt their behaviours to the environmental and organizational context, including the national
culture, if they wish to be effective (Morrison, 2000). Others claim that leadership effectiveness
is contingent upon similarities between the national cultures of leaders and followers (Brodbeck
et al., 2000; Yamaguchi, 1988). And Wendt et al. (2009) claim that societal culture, which they
operationalize as individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 2001), has a direct impact on leadership
and team cohesiveness. Similarly, Alas et al. (2007) argue that leadership and its influence are
subject to the culture of the country in which the leader is operating. Other researchers have argued
that there can be both similarities as well as differences in perceived effectiveness/ineffectiveness
of managerial and leadership behaviour across nations. For example, Dorfman and Howell (1997)
empirically demonstrated cultural universality across North America (U.S. and Mexico) and Asia
(Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) for three leader behaviours (supportive, contingent reward and
charismatic), and cultural specificity for three others (directive, participative and contingent
punishment); and Martin et al. (2009) produced similar findings.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical concepts that have guided our study of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness, which also informed the three empirical source studies upon which it has been based,
7
are known as the multiple constituency model of organizational effectiveness and the notion of
reputational effectiveness, respectively. Using the multiple constituency approach for research,
managers are perceived as operating within a social structure consisting of multiple constituencies
or stakeholders (e.g., superiors, peers, subordinates, etc.), each of whom has his/her own
expectations of and reactions to them (Tsui, 1990). How managers are perceived and judged by
their superiors, peers, and subordinates can be important for managerial success (or failure)
because it determines their reputational effectiveness (Tsui, 1984).
METHOD
We adopted Tsang and Kwan’s (1999) notion of empirical generalization replication which
utilizes the same measurement and analysis and different populations or contexts, and Berry’s
(1989) derived etic approach to applied research which involves both replication logic and multiple
cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Empirical Source Data
The empirical source data used for our Type 4 indigenous study were derived or obtained from the
seven aforementioned emic replication studies that we have severally conducted within South
Korea, Germany, China and the UK. We and the other researchers of these source studies used
Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique (CIT) to collect concrete examples of effective and
ineffective managerial behaviour observed by indigenous managers and non-managerial
employees of the respective collaborating organizations. Open coding (Flick, 2002) was used to
identify the unit(s) of meaning of each of the so collected critical incidents (CIs) and to disentangle
any as necessary. They were then subjected to axial coding (Flick, 2002) to identify discrete
categories of managerial behaviour comprised of a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 13 CIs. For
8
each of these categories a behavioural statement (BS) was created and used as a label to describe
in essence the meaning held in common to all of its constituent critical incidents.
Details of the overall CIT data and BS data that were obtained from our seven empirical
source studies and used for our study are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Empirical Source Data Used for the Study
The seven emic studies
Subject
No. of
No. of
No. of
No. of
of perceived managerial
focus of
CIT
usable
effective
ineffective
and leadership
the study*
informants
CIs
BSs
BSs
effectiveness
South Korean Study
Case SKN1
T, S, M
45
560
53
51
Multiple private sector & FL
companies
Chai et al. (2015)-refined
Chinese Study
Case CHN1
T,S, M,
35
230
14
17
A for-profit-like state & FL
enterprise
Wang (2011)
British Studies
Case UK1S, M,
55
555
31
35
A
British
global & FL
communications company
Hamlin and Bassi (2008)
Case UK2T only
37
370
16
13
A British international
telecoms plc
Hamlin
and
Sawyer
(2007)
German Studies
Case GER1
T,S,M,
64
154
15
19
A heterogeneous mix of & FL
private companies in
Germany
Patel et al., (2009)
Case GER2
S, M &
24
506
58
90
Multiple private sector FL
companies
Hamlin et al., (2013)
Case GER3
S, M &
41
393
50
38
A German space systems FL
and services company
Hamlin et al., (2014)
Totals
301
2,768
237
263
Note. Subject Focus: T-Top managers. S-Senior manager. M-Middle managers. FL-First line managers
9
Total
number
of BSs
104
31
66
29
34
148
88
500
Data Analysis
For our study we used the behavioural statement (BS) as our unit of analysis. Initially the BSs
were subjected to realist qualitative comparative analysis (Madill et al., 2000) using open coding
at the semantic level (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify the salient concept of each British,
Chinese, German and South Korean BS. The open coded BSs were then subjected to axial coding
to identify those that were the same as, similar to, or contained an element of congruent meaning
with one or more BSs from both countries (Flick, 2002; Miles and Huberman, 1994). These were
accordingly clustered and categorized into discrete behavioural categories. Each category was
then interpreted, and a simple statement created to describe in essence the meaning held in common
with all of its constituent BSs.
Trustworthiness of the Findings
The compared sets of BSs were deemed suitable for comparison because the respective researchers
of the empirical source studies had adopted the same research design and CIT protocol for
collecting and analyzing their empirical data. The credibility and dependability of our findings
were assured through a process of investigator triangulation (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). This
involved both of us conducting the cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses to a greater or
lesser extent, and then engaging in a subsequent code cross-checking exercise (Gibbs, 2007).
Working independently of each other initially and then jointly helped to assure the accuracy and
objectivity of our research (Knafl and Breitmayer, 1991).
RESULTS
Our comparative study has demonstrated empirically that perceptions of what behaviourally
distinguishes effective managers from ineffective managers within large Asian (Chinese/South
Korean) and large Western European (British/German) for-profit/for-profit-like companies are
10
highly congruent. In the main they are substantially the same and described in similar terms. As
a result of the open and axial coding 92.54% (n=62) of the Asian positive (effective) BSs were
found to be convergent in meaning with 95.29% (n=162) of the equivalent European BSs against
which they had been compared.
Similarly, 91.12% (n=62) of the Asian negative (least
effective/ineffective) BSs were found to be convergent in meaning with 95.16% (n=177) of the
equivalent Western European BSs against which they had been compared. This led to the
emergence of 25 positive and 22 negative cross-cultural ‘etic themes’ (behavioural categories) as
shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
Table 2 Positive (Effective) Behavioural Categories of Perceived Managerial and Leadership
Effectiveness
__________________________________________________________________________
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Acknowledges, gives recognition to and praises employees for good performances/successes
Rewards employees for high/good performance and extra effort
Involves employees in decision making
Actively seeks, listens to and is open to questions, ideas, opinions and suggestions from staff
Gives employees clear directions, explanations and guidance on the tasks to be performed
Shares with employees key information regarding what is going on in the company
Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals and for their well being, and listens with empathy
and sensitivity to their personal concerns
8. Actively and effectively delegates responsibilities to employees, empowers them, shows trust/confidence
in their abilities, and encourages their initiative
9. Plans ahead and produces well thought through plans including deadline dates and timings for key
decisions
10. Organizes/structures processes and procedures for efficient working and effective outcomes
11 Develops and presents a clear vision and goals for his/her department, and ensures his/her
team/subordinates’ goals are aligned
12 Provides and is always available to provide help and support to employees to solve problems or address
concerns as and when needed or requested
13 Protects/stands up for employees who are under threat from people in other departments and/or from
adverse higher management decisions
14 Provides encouragement and positive feedback/reinforcement to employees
15 Adopts an open, friendly and approachable style of management/leadership
16 Helps/supports employees to reflect upon and learn from their mistakes/errors and to improve their
performance
17 Actively encourages and supports the personal/career development of employees, provides education
and training opportunities and personally coaches/mentors them
18 Provides helpful, honest and constructive feedback on performance
19 Creates a good work environment, climate and culture within his/her team
20 Facilitates honest and open two way communication with employees
21 Fosters personal contact and close trusting interpersonal relationship with subordinates and
within/between teams
22 Monitors/checks and periodically reviews/appraises the performance of his/her employees
23 Leads by example and acts as a role model
24 Treats employees with fairness, respect and consideration
11
25 Proactively addresses/resolves problems/conflicts
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 3 Negative (Ineffective) Behavioural Categories of Perceived Managerial and Leadership
Effectiveness
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Shows lack of interest in and/or respect/sensitivity/consideration for employees as human beings
2 Overloads employees and/or fails to reduce excessive workloads
3. Fails to consult with/involve employees in decision making and/or ignores their ideas, or fails to
listen to their suggestion or queries
4. Exhibits inappropriate autocratic and controlling behaviour
5. Exhibits selfish, self-serving and manipulative behaviour
6. Exhibits unfair, unequal and discriminatory treatment of employees
7. Is inconsistent and unreliable
8. Engages in undermining behaviour
9. Exhibits emotional instability
10. Exhibits poor focus and planning
11 Exhibits poor decision making
12 Is poor at organizing and/or in self management
13. Is poor at delegation and assigning tasks
14 Gives poor directions/instruction and/or unclear explanations of his/her expectation
15 Is poor at monitoring, controlling and giving feedback
16 Exhibits procrastination, avoidance and/or abdicating behaviour
17 Fails to guide, train and develop employees
18 Does not communicate with employees or fails to communicate with them clearly
19 Exhibits a parochial and/or rigid, negative mentality
20 Mistrusts his/her employees
21 Fails to appreciate or give recognition/reward for achievement
22 Does not act as a role model or lead by example
________________________________________________________________________
Of the positive (n=5) and negative (n=6) Asian BSs found to be non-convergent, only one of the
South Korean and none of the Chinese BSs could be construed as showing evidence of being,
maybe, culturally embedded. None of the European positive BSs (n=8) or negative BSs (n=9)
indicated any evidence of being culturally embedded. To illustrate the identified convergence of
meaning between the Asian and Western European positive and negative BSs underpinning the
emergent geocentric behavioural categories, an indicative sample is given in Table 4.
Table 4. Indicative Sample of BSs Underpinning the Emergent Geocentric Behavioural Categories
South Korean Study
Two British Studies
Case SKN1: Multiple private sector companies throughout South
Korea
Case UK1: Global communications services company.
Case UK2: International telecommunications plc
Chinese Study
Three German Studies
Case CHN1 State ‘for-profit’ company in Bejing,
Case GER1: Mix of private companies throughout Germany
Case GER2: Mix of private sector companies in Bavaria
Case GER3: Space systems SME in South Germany
12
Positive (effective) BSs
Involves employees in decision making
Case SKN1
A manager listens to and discusses various topics with
his/her subordinates and determines processes and future
directions together, including goals, visions and values
based on those discussions
Case CHN1
Involves employees in decision making and conflict
[problem] resolution
Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals
and for their well being, and listens with empathy and
sensitivity to their personal concerns
Case SKN1
A manager takes a personal interest in his/her
subordinates as individuals and shows care for their well
being
A manager understands and pays attention to the
emotions and feelings of his/her subordinates, and reacts
to them in a sensitive, empathetic, un-intrusive and/or
gentle manner
A manager empathetically listens to subordinates'
ideas, opinions and personal issues with an
open-mind, and strives to be supportive
Case CHN1
Cares about employees’ [welfare]
Positive (effective) BSs
Involves employees in decision making
Case UK1
Involves staff in decision making and problem solving
Case UK2
Consults and includes others in decision making
Case GER1
Involves employees in decision-making; pursues their
interests; consults with employees
Case GER1
The manager allows his employees to participate in
decision making;
The manager involves his/her employees in decision
making
Case GER3
Manager involves their staff in decision making and/or
includes them in meetings and discussions
At employee review meetings my manager and I specify
my goals together and she takes the opportunity for a
detailed exchange of views so that we both learn and
take something from the meeting
Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals
and for their well being, and listens with empathy and
sensitivity to their personal concerns
Case UK1
Shows care and concern for the health and well being of
staff
Is willing to be flexible and gives support to staff that
are experiencing problems in their personal
circumstances
Recognizes fear and anxieties of staff in change
situations and takes proactive action to allay or reduce
fears
Case UK2
Shows [personal] interest in others, being responsive to
their needs
Case GER1
Shows [personal] interest in employee’s needs/career
plans, is sensitive to their concerns and is empathetic
Case GER2
The manager shows interest in his employees
The manager responds to the needs of every individual
employee
The manager cares about his/her employees’ [personal]
problems
The manager handles employee [personal] issues with
care [sensitivity]
Case GER3
Manager shows care for employees and colleagues in
stressful situations (e.g., gave less work to employees returning
to work after an accident; gave an employee a day off to look after her
sick child; visited a colleague in hospital; showed humanity to
employee who gets tense)
Manager is flexible about employees’ holiday
arrangements and other work-life balance issues
13
Manager shows interest in me as a person and engages
in personal conversations (e.g., asks about my weekends and
vacations; knows about my hobbies; talks about private things)
Negative (ineffective) BSs
Selfish, self-serving manipulative behaviour
Case SKN1
A manager assigns to or dumps on staff tasks that s/he
does not want to take on her/himself
A manager perceives his/her subordinates and other
teams as competitors/rivals and refuses to share
information
A manager takes the credit for his/her subordinates' work
and does not give them recognition or reward
A manager shifts responsibility when things go wrong
and avoids blame for negative results by passing the
buck to his/her subordinates
A manager engages in politicking and/or manipulative
behaviour for own self interest
A manager prioritizes and/or is only interested in his/her
own needs and interests
A manager misuses the company's resources [e.g., money
or subordinate time] and/or violates/neglects processes or
standards at work for personal/private benefit
A manager takes on unnecessary or extra tasks to please
or impress upper managers
Case CHN1
Acts selfishly (abuses authority for personal gain)
Shows favouritism
Exhibits unfair, unequal and/or discriminatory
treatment of employees
Case SKN1
A manager engages in discriminatory behaviour (e.g.,
assigns excessive work/weekend duties to females that cannot be met;
expects subordinates to behave differently according to their gender;
practices sexual discrimination)
A manager assigns critical tasks and delegates
authorities to favored subordinates only
A manager provides privileges and cares for favored
subordinates and discriminates based on his/her personal
preferences
A manager unfairly provides more work to higher
performers and less work to low performers
Case CHN1
Does not evaluate employees in a fair manner
14
Manager is open to new ideas and solutions to problems
suggested by employees, and also [open] to their
[personal]concerns
Negative (ineffective) BSs
Selfish, self-serving manipulative behaviour
Case UK1
Demonstrates selfish and self-serving behaviours;
Case UK2
Case GER1
Case GER2
The manager gives the impression that his/her praise is
not sincere
The manager is not loyal to his/her employees
The manager does not admit errors
The manager abuses his/her position of power
The manager is only interested in his/her own benefit
The manager does not correct his/her misbehaviour
The manager overestimates his/her professional
competencies
The manager uses praise as leverage
Case GER3
Manager is selfish and self serving ( e.g., takes care only of
his own wants; pursues a disinterested foreign customer for personal
leisure reasons; not transparent about what they do all day; lobbies
just at own level or above and not at lower levels)
Superior is insincere and/or manipulative (e.g., uses praise
as a smokescreen to delegate additional tasks; makes up own
‘company rule as basis to reject my request for holiday; asks me to
do a task and then found he’d asked someone else;’ uses untrue
arguments in a salary negotiation; praise seems artificial)
Manager does not admit to errors/mistakes, and takes
action to avoid blame
Exhibits unfair, unequal and/or discriminatory
treatment of employees
Case UK1
12) Shows favoritism and demonstrates double
standards in decisions and behaviour
Case UK2
Case GER1
Criticises in an unfair way/gives unjustified criticism
Does not treat employees equally/favours certain
employees
Case GER2
The manager gives unjust criticism
The manager treats women with less respect than men
The manager has prejudice against the work
performance of long-term employees
When in a bad mood, the manager is unfair towards
his/her employees
The manager treats different employees in different
ways
Case GER3
DISCUSSION
The unexpected and most significant finding from addressing our research question is that 91.85%
(n=124) of the identified behavioural indicators that differentiate effective managers from
ineffective managers in Chinese and South Korean ‘for-profit-like/for profit’ organizations appear
to be the same as, or similar to, or have an element of congruent meaning with 95.23% (n=339) of
those identified in British and German private sector companies, and consequently appear to be
global (context-general). This finding challenges predominant discourse in the cross-cultural
management literature which asserts that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership
behaviour are contingent on the cultural aspects of specific countries (Alas et al., 2007; House et
al., 2004).
On the contrary, it suggests that managers and employees working within Asian private
companies are likely, in the main, to perceive and judge the behavioural indications and contraindications of managerial and leadership effectiveness in much the same way as do their
counterparts within Western European private companies. The finding also challenges Tsui’s
(1984) assertion that the behaviours which determine managers’ reputational effectiveness are
idiosyncratically context-specific, and vary according to their respective organizational/cultural
contexts and constituencies. The most unexpected finding is that only one of the 11 nonconvergent Asian BSs shows any evidence of perhaps being culturally embedded; namely the
South Korean negative BS: “A manager adopts an extreme collectivist approach to teamwork”
(e.g., expects them to commute to work together; do overtime together; not leave until everyone
has finished their overtime work; prevents anyone leaving the office before s/he leaves). We
suggest this might be due to South Korea being a highly collectivist society, whereas the national
culture of the UK is highly individualistic (Hofstede, 2001). For example, it might be the result
15
of South Korean managers overusing the collectivism orientation. Based on the non-convergent
negative BS: “A manager exhibits a lack of expertise and/or of volition to learn which limits his/her
ability to lead/manage fully and effectively” (e.g., to voice own opinions on team tasks; to provide
direction and evaluate outcomes; to give help/advice to staff), it seems that expertise is a more
critical component for South Korean managerial practices.
The identified high degrees of commonality between the findings from the two Asian and
two Western European countries are similar in magnitude to those identified by the aforementioned
public sector hospital-related replication studies carried out by Hamlin et al. in Egypt, Mexico and
Romania. As with all of these past studies, the cross-cultural etic themes (behavioural categories)
that emerged from our multiple cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses were comprised of
a mosaic-style integration of diverse-emic BSs drawn from the BS data sets of the compared cases.
Thus, our study is an example of Type 4 indigenous Asian management research, as called for by
Lyles (2009) and Li et al. (2012). Furthermore, our findings are illustrative of what Li (2012)
refers to as geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Limitations of the Study
We acknowledge two limitations of our cross-case/cross-nation comparative study. The first
relates to the imbalance in the number of Asian BSs (n=135) compared against the much larger
number of Western European BSs (n=356). The second limitation arises from the fact that the
Asian empirical source data were obtained from just one indigenous study in China and one in
South Korea, whereas the Western European data were obtained multiple indigenous studies.
Consequently, our findings and conclusions need to be treated with a degree of caution until such
time that more indigenous replication studies are carried out in the two Asian countries.
Implications for HRD Practice and Future Research
16
The positive and negative behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness within a Chinese for-profit-like state enterprise and multiple British, German and
South Korean private sector companies have been shown to be mostly the same, and only a small
portion of different (local/context-specific) categories of effective and ineffective managerial
behaviour have emerged from the compared studies. These findings suggest that human resource
development (HRD) practitioners in all four countries could utilize the geocentric (emic-and-etic)
findings of our study to inform the creation of new management and leadership development
programs, or to critically evaluate extant programmes.
We suggest that the findings of our study could provide useful information to Western
multinationals (MNCs) that have operations in China and South Korea. With specific and detailed
knowledge of the different categories of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour, as
perceived and judged by indigenous managers and non-managerial employees within large private
companies, they could better prepare their expatriate managers and other expatriates for
international assignments in those two Asian countries based on hard empirical evidence. In
addition, with our findings, MNCs could be in a better position to recruit and select candidates
possessing the necessary behavioural competencies to be successful as an expatriate manager in
China and South Korea.
A direction for future research could be for more private sector related single-organization
and multiple-organization emic replication studies to be conducted in the four countries of our
study, followed by multiple cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses to validate and further
develop (if possible) the geocentric (emic-and-etic) behavioural categories of perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness that have emerged from our study. Another direction
could be to instigate equivalent emic replication studies within a diverse range of public and third
17
sector organizations in the four countries, and then conduct cross-sector and cross-nation studies
in search of similarities and differences. It is our hope that the current indigenous and non-normal
science cross-case/cross-nation comparative study of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness will help enrich and advance the research and work of an expanding global
community of HRD scholars and practitioners (Kuchinke et al., 2014).
REFERENCES
Alas R, Tafel K and Tunlik K (2007) Leadership style during transition in society: The case of
Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management 5(1): 50-62.
Arvonen J and Ekvall G (1999) Effective leadership style: Both universal and contingent?
Creativity & Innovation Management 8: 242-257. doi: 10.1111/1467-8691.00143
Bass BM (1996) Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? International Journal
of Public Administration 16: 738-769. doi:10.1080/01900699608525119
Bass BM and Riggio RE (2006) Transformational Leadership (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bennis W (1999) The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full
inclusion, initiatives and co-operation of followers. Organizational Dynamics 28: 71-80.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80008-X
Berry JW (1989) Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea.
International Journal of Psychology 24: 721-735. doi:10.1080/00207598908247841
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3: 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
18
Brodbeck FC, Frese M, Akerblom S, Audia G, Bakacsi G, Bendova H and Wunderer R (2000)
Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 1-29.
doi: 10.1348/096317900166859
Cammock P, Nilakant V and Dakin S (1995) Developing a lay model of managerial
effectiveness: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Management Studies 32:
443-474. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1995.tb00784.x
Chai DS, Jeong S, Kim J and Kim S (2015) Perceived managerial effectiveness in a Korean
context: A qualitative study on indigenous management. Paper presented at the 2015
AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Dorfman P and Howell J (1997) Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and
differences in effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly 8: 233-275. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5
Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R and Lowe A (1991) Management Research: An Introduction.
London: Sage.
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review 14: 532-550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51: 327-358.
doi:10.1037/h0061470
Flick U (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd ed). London: Sage.
Gibbs GR (2007) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Hamlin RG and Bassi N (2008) Behavioural indicators of manager and managerial leader
effectiveness: An example of Mode 2 knowledge production in management to support
19
evidence-based practice. International Journal of Management Practice 3: 115-130.
doi:10.1504/IJMP.2008.018366
Hamlin RG and Hatton A (2013) Toward a British taxonomy of perceived managerial and
leadership effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly 24: 365-406.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21163
Hamlin RG, Nassar M and Wahba K (2010) Behavioural criteria of managerial and leadership
effectiveness within Egyptian and British public sector hospitals: An empirical study and
multiple-case/cross-nation comparative analysis. Human Resource Development
International 13: 43-64. doi:10.1080/13678861003608238
Hamlin RG and Patel T (2012) Behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness in Romanian and British public sector hospitals. European Journal of
Training and Development 35: 234-261. doi: 10.1108/03090591211204733
Hamlin RG, Ruiz CE and Wang J (2011) Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness
within Mexican and British public sector hospitals: A cross-nation comparative analysis.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 22: 491-517. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20087
Hamlin RG and Sawyer J (2007) Developing effective leadership behaviours: The value of
evidence-based management. Business Leadership Review 4 (4).
Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values
(2nd ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holtbrugge D, Narayanan K and Hui W (2011) Call for papers: MIR Focused Issue.
Management International Review. Retrieved on June 20, 2014, at: https://www.tuchemnitz.de/wirtschaft/bwl5/konferenzen/ostforum/MIR%20Focused%20Issue_Call%20
for%20Papers.pdf
20
Horner-Long P and Schoenberg R (2002) Does E-business require different leadership
characteristics? An empirical investigation. European Management Journal 20: 611-619.
doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00112-3
House RJ and Aditya R (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management 23: 409-465. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306
House RJ, Hanges P J, Javidan M, Dorfman PW and Gupta V (2004) Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. London: Sage.
Knafl KA and Breitmayer BJ (1991) Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual
clarity and purpose. In: Morse JM (ed) Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary
Dialogue. London: Sage, pp. 226-239.
Kuchinke KP, Ardichvili A, Sadler-Smith E, McLean G and Hamlin RG (2014) HRD and design
science: Reclaiming practical relevance of HRD academic research. Innovative session
presented at the 2014 International Conference on Human Resource Development
Research and Practice across Europe, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Kuhn T (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolution (3rd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Leung K (2007) The glory and tyranny of citation impact: As East Asian perspective. Academy
of Management Journal 50: 510-513. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525592
Leung K and White S (eds) (2004). Handbook of Asian Management. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Li PP (2012) Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric
implications of Yin-Yang Balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29: 849-872.
doi: 10.1007/s10490-011-9250-z
21
Li PP, Leung K, Chen CC and Luo J-D (2012) Indigenous research on Chinese management:
What and how. Management and Organization Review 8: 7-24.
doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2012.00288.x
Li PP, Zhou K and Sekiguchi T (2014) Call for papers: Special issue on indigenous management
research in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Retrieved on June 20, 2014, at:
http://www.iacmr.org/v2en/Detail.asp?id=413
Lyles M (2009) Call for proposal submission for Dissertation Grant and Workshop.
International Association for Chinese management Research. Retrieved on June 20, 2014,
at: http://www.iacmr.org/Publications/MOR/IndigenousResearch/Definition of
Indigenous Research MOR.pdf
Madill A, Jordon A and Shirley C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis:
Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of
Psychology 91: 1-20. doi: 10.1348/000712600161646
Martin G, Resick C, Keating M and Dickson M (2009) Ethical leadership across cultures: A
comparative analysis of German and US perspectives. Business Ethics: A European
Review 18: 127-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01553.x
Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.
Morrison A (2000) Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management 39:
117-131. doi: 10.1002/1099-050X(200022/23)39:2/3<117::AID-HRM3>3.0.CO;2-1
Patel T, Hamlin R G and Heidegen S (2009). Exploring managerial and leadership effectiveness:
Comparing private sector companies across Germany and the UK. Working paper presented
22
at the UFHRD/AHRD 10th International conference on HRD research and practice across
Europe, Northumbria University, United Kingdom, June.
Patel T and Hamlin RG (2012). Deducing a taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness: A comparative study of effective and ineffective behaviour across 3 EU
countries. Human Resource Development International 15: 571-587.
doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.726539
Robie C, Johnson K, Nilsen D and Hazucha J (2001) The right stuff: Understanding cultural
differences in leadership performance. Journal of Management Development 20: 639650. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005637
Tsang E K K and Kwan K-M (1999) Replication and theory development in organizational
science: a critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review 24: 759-780. doi:
10.5465/AMR.1999.2553252
Tsui AS (1984) A multiple-constituency framework of managerial reputational effectiveness. In:
Hunt JG, Hoskings J, Schriesheim C and Stewart R (eds) Leaders and Managers:
International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership. New York:
Pergamon, pp. 28-42.
Tsui AS (1990) A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the
human resource subunit level. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 458-483.
doi:10.2307/2393313
Tsui AS (2006) Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and
Organization Review 2: 1-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00033.x
Tsui AS (2007) From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the
Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal 50: 1353-1364.
23
doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166121
Tsui AS (2009) Editor’s Introduction-autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging
scientific communities. Management and Organization Review 5: 1-14.
doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00143.x
Wang J (2011) Understanding managerial effectiveness: A Chinese perspective. Journal of
European Industrial Training 35(1): 6-23. doi: 10.1108/03090591111095718
Wendt H, Euwema M and Emmerik I (2009) Leadership and team cohesiveness across
cultures. Leadership Quarterly 20: 358–370. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005
Whetton DA (2009) An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the
study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review 5: 29-55.
doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x
White S (2002) Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where
can we go? Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19: 287-352.
doi: 10.1023/A:1016295803623
Yamaguchi T (1988) The challenge of internationalization: Japan’s kokusaika. Academy of
Management Executive 2(1): 33-36. doi: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275588
Yukl G (2010) Leadership in Organizations (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang X, Fu P, Xi Y, Li L, Xu L, Cao C, … Ge J (2012) Understanding indigenous leadership
research: Explication and Chinese examples. Leadership Quarterly 23: 1063-1079. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.009
24