management and research implications

advertisement
Managing People and Change: Comparing Organisations and Management in Australia,
China, India and South Africa
Janice Jones
Lecturer, School of Commerce
Flinders University of South Australia
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide South Australia 5001
Telephone: +61 8 82012707
Facsimile: +61 8 82012644
Email: Janice.Jones@flinders.edu.au
and
Terence Jackson
Centre for Cross Cultural Management Research
EAP European School of Management
12 Merton Street
Oxford OX1
England
Telepone: +55 1865 263212
Email: tjackson@eap.net
SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
RESEARCH PAPER SERIES: 01-5
ISSN: 1441-3906
1
ABSTRACT
This study investigates perceptions and attitudes of Australian, Chinese, Indian and South
African managers to managing people and organisations. Comparisons between managers and
organisations from Australia and China, India and South Africa reveal cross-cultural
similarities and differences exist. While similarities exist with other Anglo countries there are
exceptions, including significant differences between the direction of Australian management
commitment and China, India and South Africa. The implications of these differences for
international joint ventures are explored. The implications of motivators considered important
to Chinese managers in the present study are also addressed.
2
INTRODUCTION
Over the last 15 years, there have been significant changes in the Australian economy. With
the aim of exposing the Australian economy to international competition, successive
Australian governments initiated a series of macro- and micro-economic reforms including
floating of the dollar, phasing out tariffs, waterfront, shipping and air-freight reform, financial
deregulation (Edwards, O’Reilly and Schuwwalow, 1997) and the gradual freeing up of the
labour market. Key elements of the micro-economic reform agenda also included workplace
change, public sector reform and privatisation (ACIRRT, 1999). These policy reforms have
transformed the so-called ‘Australian settlement’ to a new ‘post industrial settlement’
Australia, in which traditional manufacturing industries (the old protected ‘smokestack’
industries) have been replaced by the so-called ‘elaborately transformed manufactures’
(ETMs) and service sector (Burrell, 1999).
As a result of these developments, Australian organisations faced considerable competitive
pressures. Furthermore, as the old protectionism characteristic of Australian industrial policy
gave way to a more free-market driven approach in tune with the realities of the new global
economy, Australian companies and workers have been forced to change their approaches to
productivity, wages and workplace practices (Burrell, 1999).
These general trends within the Australian economy reflect a global tendency over the last
two decades for national economies to move towards a free-market system. Major events
within the Soviet bloc at the end of the 1980s, the liberalization of the Chinese economy and
its opening up to east-west joint ventures, the end of apartheid and sanctions in South Africa,
and major reforms in India shifting the economy away from state protectionism are examples
of this global trend.
3
This paper builds upon a study previously undertaken by Jones and Jackson (2000) as part of
a research effort to reconcile differences in management approaches towards managing
people and organisations in the international context. The principal objective in this paper is
to compare data on Australian management and organisations with data from China, India and
South Africa in order to highlight both common and different organisational dynamics within
countries which have undergone fundamental transitions towards free market economies.
Such a comparison is of interest for the following reasons.
The Chinese market is the fastest growing economy in Asia with economic growth of 7.1 per
cent in 1999 (Austrade, 2000). As one of the worlds’ fastest developing economies (Wright,
Mitsuhashi & Chau, 1998) and the world's most populous nation with a growing middle class,
the People's Republic of China represents an opportunity as a potential major market of the
future. It is also a challenge for Australian firms and their managers wanting to do business in
China, as the Chinese culture differs substantially from that of Western countries.
Much of China’s economic growth has come from the opening of the economy to direct
foreign investment, most often in the form of joint ventures with Chinese partner
organisations, and multinational corporations (Lindholm, 1999). Committed Australian direct
investment in China totalled 5 billion Australian dollars while realised Australian direct
investment in China totalled 1.5 billion dollars (Austrade, 2000). Australia is now the fifth
largest investor in China’s special economic development areas of Shenzen, Guangzhou and
Zhuhon (Harris, 1994).
India’s economy has been growing at the rate of approximately 6 per cent for the last three
years and is expected to grow at around the same rate in the year 2000. India is the world’s
second most populated country and has emerged as a rapidly growing market for Australian
4
goods and services. Exports of ETMs from Australia have increased from around $20 million
in the late 1980s to approximately $190 million in 1998/99. Paralleling this trend in exports is
the increase in Australian investment in India. Austrade (2000) estimates that current
investment exceeds $1 billion covering over 100 companies, compared to approximately
$250 million and 30 joint ventures in the early 1990s.
South Africa is yet another large market undergoing steady growth. Australian exports to
South Africa have increased rapidly over the last five years at a trend growth rate of 35
percent per annum, reaching A$ 1.013 billion in 1996/97. South Africa is Australia’s fastest
growing market for ETMs with a trend growth rate of 42 percent over the last five years
(Austrade, 2000).
As more Australian businesses expand into these countries through foreign direct investment,
exporting, the establishment of branches or foreign subsidiaries, joint ventures and strategic
alliances, managers must not only meet the standard challenges of managing, but also contend
with the additional challenge of doing so in differing political, legal and cultural
environments. It is in the context of managing the relationships of individuals, groups and
organisations of different cultural backgrounds, that companies have commonly experienced
difficulties (Stening and Ngan, 1997). Comparative studies can be an invaluable source used
to generate knowledge of both similarities and differences in management systems of trading
partners that may assist Australian managers develop appropriate organisational and
managerial practices in such countries.
The paper is organised in the following manner. The first section describes the research
method. This is followed by the discussion of results. We then examine key cross-cultural
5
differences. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of such cross-cultural
differences. Suggestions for further research are also addressed.
RESEARCH METHOD
Procedure
The design of the study was essentially exploratory in that we set out to capture broad-ranging
information about management and organisation using a short questionnaire which could be
replicable in different countries, and would provide comparison with previous studies. The
first part of the questionnaire based predominantly on prior cross-cultural studies of
organisational factors includes items on strategy, structure, decision-making, control,
character in terms of ethics, success and change, internal policies, climate, external policies,
management expertise and people orientation (Vertinski, Tse, Wehrung and Lee, 1990;
Hofstede, 1994; Reynolds, 1986; Laurent, 1989). Managers were asked to respond to items on
the basis of their organisation currently, the way it is changing, and how they would like it to
change. They were asked to indicate, using a five-point Likert scale, whether “their
organisation is like this at the moment”, “the way it is going in the future” and “the way they
would like it to be” (with 1 “being not like this at all”, and 5 “exactly like this”).
The second part of the questionnaire comprises a subsection of ten items derived from
motivation theory and informed by cross-cultural studies which suggest that commonalties as
well as differences in managerial motivation exist among different national cultures (England,
1986; Hui, 1990; Alpander and Carter, 1991). The items measure needs for economic and
psychological security, control, self-enhancement, autonomy, independence, belonging,
personal self worth, belonging and personal development. The next sub-section focuses on
the direction of management commitment (commitment towards: self; the group; the
organisation; people; results; business objectives regardless of methods; ethical principles;
work; and, relatives). The items draw on aspects of collectivism and individualism (Hofstede,
6
1980, Wagner, 1995) as well as aspects of humanism and instrumentalism (Jackson, 1999).
The next sub-section looks at principles by which managers operate and make decisions
(locus of control, deontological and teleological decision making, trust or mistrust of human
nature, and status or achievement orientations). Items focus more specifically on cultural
factors drawing widely on the literature and accessing information on perceptions of human
nature (Kluckholn and Strodtbeck, 1961) and mirroring McGregor’s (1960) concept of theory
X and theory Y (see also Evans, Hau and Sculli, 1989), locus of control (Trompenaars, 1993,
after Rotter, 1966), utilitarianism and formalism in decision making (Jackson, T. 1993), and
ascribed and achieved status (Trompanaars, 1993). The final sub-section accesses information
on management practices (reliance on hierarchy, use of rank, levels of participation and
egalitarianism, communicating and providing information, and degree of confrontation) and
drawing on such aspects in the literature as respect for hierarchy (Kluckholn and Strodtbeck,
1961; Evans Hau and Sculli, 1989). Managers were asked to respond to items on the basis of
“me as a manager”, “managers generally in my organisation”, and “the type of manager
required for the future of the organisation”. They were asked to indicate using a five-point
Likert scale with 1 “being least like this” and 5 “exactly like this”.
Sample
The sampling frame for the Australian survey was derived from the membership of the
Australian Institute of Management (AIM). A postal survey was used to obtain the data in
May 1999. From a mail-out of 493 questionnaires, 93 useable questionnaires were returned,
yielding a response rate of 19 per cent. Of the resulting sample 62 per cent of managers
classified themselves as senior managers, 37 per cent as middle managers and 1.0 per cent as
junior managers. The average age of the managers in the sample was 44.7 years (standard
deviation: 5.57 years), and this fits with the senior profile of this group. Females comprised
20 per cent of the sample. The predominance of males in the sample is consistent with the
7
predominance of males in the general management population (Affirmative Action Agency,
1999). The majority of respondents (73 per cent) were from the private sector, and 10 per cent
from foreign companies. Membership in the AIM generally mirrors the characteristics of the
management population in Australia.
According to officials of the AIM, demographics of the sample are sufficiently similar to
overall membership. The percentage of women, public servants and average age that make up
the sample are reflective of overall membership, and while the AIM database was unable to
provide confirmation with respect to the representativeness of sample levels of management
and foreign ownership, nevertheless officials believe the sample demographics are
representative of AIM membership. Furthermore, the AIM recently conducted a short survey
of their members under 35 years of age. Interestingly, in this study a high number of
respondents (27 percent) classified themselves as senior managers. With today’s flatter
management structures, many may consider themselves to be senior managers, when perhaps
a few years ago, the same level of responsibility would have been deemed to be middle
management.
Samples from South Africa, China and India were obtained using comparable sampling
frames, but also ensuring that the cultural and regional diversity of the management
populations were represented in South Africa (n = 426), China (n = 216) and India (n = 79).
These generally matched the Australian sample in terms of proportion of public sector
managers, but foreign companies in China (28.2 per cent) and South Africa (21.4 per cent)
represented a higher proportion than in the Australian sample. Although the other countries
had lower proportions of managers rating themselves as senior, generally managers reported
having more subordinates in China and South Africa, and on average the same in India. On
average managers’ organisations were reportedly smaller in Australia than the other countries,
8
which may account for the difference in perceived higher level of management compared
with the other countries.
RESULTS
Operational and Strategic Orientation Constructs which were robust across responses were
used to provide perceptions (current, ideal and future organisation) of general operational and
strategic orientation. The control orientation construct comprises a scale of four questionnaire
items: very hierarchical, very centralized, very authoritarian and many strict rules. Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale across national groups ranges from .804 to .761. The people orientation
construct comprises five items: consults employees, provides equal opportunities for all, clear
policies on employee relations, motivates employees and has the well being of its people as a
major objectives. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .842 to .558. The results orientation construct
comprises five items: oriented towards the market, clear objectives, very successful, clear
policies on client or customer relations and results oriented. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from
.876 to .632. While Carmines and Zellar (1979) note that Cronbach’s alpha should be greater
than 0.80 for frequently used scales, all three scales are sufficiently reliable for this
exploratory study as the alpha coefficients exceed 0.50 (Soutar, McNeil and Molster, 1995).
However, the constructs require verification in future studies to determine if they are stable.
Summary results presented in Table 1 suggest that Australian organisations are less control
oriented than Chinese and South African organisations, and compared to their Chinese and
South African counterparts, Australian managers believe less control is ideal. However, they
perceive little change to the current situation in the future. Australian organisations are also
more people oriented than Chinese organisations, and compared to Chinese and Indian
respondents, managers perceive a stronger people orientation as ideal. Australian
organisations appear to be moving toward both a greater people and results orientation in the
future, in contrast to Indian organisations.
9
‘Table 1 here’
There are some differences between private and public sectors. Across the national groups,
managers indicate that the public sector is generally more control oriented (t.stat. 4.49, sign.
.000), less people oriented (t stat. 3.70, sign. .000) and less results oriented (t stat. 6.15, sign.
.000).
Operational Characteristics
Single item measures are used to provide a profile of operational characteristics (Table 1) and
include constraints and influences (being bound by government regulations, influenced by
family, strength of trade unions), operational features (degree of change, extent of foreign
ownership), management style of operating (risk taking, flexibility, ethicality, using well
defined rules of operations), internal dynamics (extent of internal competition for promotion
and inter-ethnic harmony, encouragement of different opinions) and management expertise
and skills.
Constraints and Influences
Australian companies are less bound by government regulations than Chinese and South
African organisations, and compared to Chinese, South African and Indian respondents,
Australian managers believe less regulatory influence is ideal. However, there appears to be
no change to the status quo in the future.
Australian respondents report weak trade unions, in contrast to South Africa organisations,
which recorded the strongest trade union activity. Compared to the other nationalities,
10
Australians believe still less union influence is ideal, although again, there appears to be little
change to the current situation in the future.
Operating Features
Australian managers indicate a higher rate of organisational change than Chinese and Indian
managers, but express a desire for significantly less change compared to the other
nationalities in the investigation. Australian organisations recorded the least level of foreign
ownership, with their managers responding that they perceive this to be significantly more
ideal than both South African and Chinese managers do. While Australian respondents expect
this to increase in the future, significantly less so than do the South Africans.
Style of Organisational Management
Australian organisations appear to be more risk taking (and believe this is more ideal) than
Chinese organisations, more flexible than the South Africans, and significantly more ethical
than Chinese, Indian and South African organisations. Australian managers believe an even
higher level of ethicality is ideal compared to their Chinese, Indian and South African
colleagues, and believe that their organisations are moving is this direction in the future.
Internal Dynamics
In terms of competition for promotion, Chinese and South African organisations appear to be
more dynamic than Australian organisations, with this situation expected to continue in the
future. And while Australian managers perceive more competition is ideal, significantly less
so than the other nations surveyed.
Australian organisations are characterised by more diverse opinions compared with their
Chinese counterparts, as well as more inter-ethnic harmony than the South Africans.
11
Compared to Chinese and Indian managers, Australian managers believe that inter ethnic
harmony is more an ideal, and believe that their organisations are moving in this direction in
the future.
Management Expertise
Australian managers believe that their organisations possess significantly higher levels of
management expertise than their counterparts in Chinese organisations, and compared to
Indian respondents, believe more is ideal.
Management Motivation
Single item measures were used to compare differences in motivation (Table 2). Australian
managers are more motivated by autonomy and uncertainty in their jobs than their Chinese
and Indian colleagues, and compared to the Indians, more motivated by personal development
opportunities. Interestingly, Australian managers believe that their colleagues are less
motivated by these opportunities. They are also more motivated by achievement than are
Indian managers. In contrast to the Chinese, the Australians are significantly less motivated
by independence and control, and compared with the Chinese and South Africans, less
motivated by economic security. Finally, in contrast to South African and Indian managers,
they are less motivated by ambition (recording the lowest level for these items of the
countries in the survey).
‘Table 2 here’
Management Commitment
Table 2 also provides comparative results for the direction of management commitment.
Compared to their Chinese, Indian and South African counterparts, Australian managers
12
indicate a significantly higher commitment to ethical principles with lower commitment to
business objectives regardless of means, and a lower commitment to organisation, results,
work and relatives.
Management Principles
Australian managers have a higher internal and lower external locus of control than Chinese,
Indian and South African managers, and base their decisions more on outcomes than South
African managers, and less on pre-set principles compared to Chinese and South African
managers. The Australians are the most trusting of employees of the nations surveyed.
Australian managers are more achievement oriented than their Chinese and Indian colleagues,
and significantly less status oriented than managers from China, India and South Africa.
However, they see their management colleagues as more status oriented and less achievement
oriented than themselves.
Management Practices
Australian managers rely less on hierarchy than do their Indian and South African colleagues,
and less on rank than do the Chinese, but are on par with the other nationalities. They are less
egalitarian than their Indian and Chinese counterparts, but communicate and provide
information more openly. They are less confrontational than Chinese and South African
managers.
DISCUSSION
Results documented above suggest cross-cultural differences exist between Australia and the
other countries surveyed. Many of the main differences are with China, and while similarities
with other Anglo countries exist, there are exceptions; these are also highlighted.
Australia and China
13
Significant differences exist between Australian and Chinese management practices including
the use of rank, extent of confrontation and assertiveness, information sharing and
communication, and also in management principles; in particular status/achievement
orientation, philosophical assumptions about employees and extent of internal/external
control (Table 2). Further differences were identified between Chinese and Australian
motivators: Chinese managers are significantly more motivated by economic security,
independence and control in contrast to their Australians counterparts. Significant differences
were also identified in the direction of management commitment. Australian managers are
significantly more committed to ethical principles and less committed to business objectives
regardless of means, organisation, results, and work compared to Chinese managers (Table 2).
Further differences were identified in operational and strategic orientations: Chinese
organisations are generally more control oriented than Australian organisations, with Chinese
managers happy with this situation. In contrast, Australian organisations appear to be more
people oriented than Chinese organisations, with Australian managers believing this to be
significantly more ideal than Chinese managers (Table 1).
Results from the Chinese sub-sample (from management practices such as the use of rank and
management principles such as status basis, to control as a management motivator and
primary control orientation) may reflect the Chinese culture and predominant ideology,
Confucianism. Confucianism is basically authoritarian, and stresses hierarchical principles
and status differences, creating a largely autocratic managerial style (Semler, 1999). Vertinski
et al. (1990) also note that the ascribed status orientation rather than achieved status is rooted
in Confucianism.
The low score given to the use of rank by Australian managers is perhaps a reflection of the
cultural emphasis on equalitarianism in Australian society. Like ‘mateship’, the cultural
14
emphasis on equalitarianism in Australian society is well established (Encel, 1970). Encel
(1970: 56) defines the term equality as
…one which places a great stress on the enforcement of a high minimum standard of
well-being, on the outward show of equality and the minimisation of privileges due to
formal rank…
The primary Australian strategic and operational people orientation supports previous
management research beginning more than a quarter of a century ago with England (1975,
1978) and associates (Whitely and England, 1980) and continuing today (Jenner, 1982;
Westwood and Posner, 1997) which have consistently concluded that Australian managers
have a highly humanistic orientation, and place major importance on values that reflect a high
concern for others.
Australia and India
Both India and Australia were (and in the case of Australia, still is) part of the British empire:
Australia’s Western traditions began when Britain colonised Australia as a penal colony in
the late eighteenth century, and for most its history has retained strong links with Britain.
India’s links with Britain ended in 1947 when British rule ceased. Because of this long
affiliation with Britain, it may seem more likely that its management styles and organisations
would be like that of other Anglo countries. In the current study, both Australian and Indian
managers report a moderate degree of control orientation. Similarities also exist in operational
organisational characteristics. These include a weaker degree of government regulation and
weak trade unions; extent of foreign ownership; organisational flexibility; and higher inter
ethnic harmony.
However, while Indian managers are more ambitious than their Australian colleagues, they
are comparatively less motivated by autonomy, personal development, achievement and
managing uncertainty (Table 2). England (1975) also reported cross-cultural differences
15
between Indian and Australian managers. In a study of managerial values conducted more
than twenty five years ago, England (1975) concluded that Indian managers value stable
organisations with minimal or steady change, and this fits with the low score attached to
managing uncertainty.
Results suggest Indian managers are significantly more committed to business objectives
regardless of means, organisation, results and work than their Australian counterparts. Other
studies also report that Indian managers are strongly focussed on organisational compliance,
including [non aggressive] pursuit of objectives (England, 1975). More recent research (e.g.,
Pareek and Rao, 1992; Rohmetra, 1995) suggests that the liberalization of the Indian
economy necessitated a move away from a control orientation, to both a results and people
oriented approach, which emphasises a humanistic as well as an instrumental approach to
managing. However, the operational and strategic orientations identified in the current study
also suggest Indian respondents perceive a stronger people orientation as significantly less
ideal than do the Australians, and compared to their Australian counterparts, believe that their
organisations will be significantly less people and results oriented in the future.
The mean score of 3.05 for Australian organisations’ control orientation suggests a moderate
control orientation. This result, taken together with the desire expressed by managers for
significantly less control, yet the belief that organisations will continue to be control oriented
in the future may arguably, add to a growing body of literature suggesting that Australian
business continues to be demonstrate a ‘command and control’ focus (Karpin 1995; Kabanoff
and Daly in press). Kabanoff and Daly (in press) concluded that results such as these support
criticisms of Australian business culture, namely that it is ‘too top-down’ and inflexible in
style.
16
Kabanoff, Jimmieson, and Lewis (in press) suggest that ‘command and control’ style
organisations endure and thrive in a relatively stable, predictable and undemanding
environment. They believe that Australia may have provided a fertile breeding ground for this
type of organization, as for much of the twentieth century, Australian organisations have
operated in a centrally controlled industrial relations environment, protected from foreign
competition by high tariff barriers and benefited from high prices for exported commodities.
And as a result, Australian organisations have enjoyed a comfortable, bureaucratically
controlled existence.
However, as these conditions have ceased and, are unlikely to return in the future, Australian
managers’ belief of a continued control orientation raises questions about the efficacy of
changes to organizational structures, policies and practices (Dunphy and Stace, 1990),
reportedly designed to move organizations away from a ‘command and control’ approach.
Indian managers are comparatively less committed to ethical principles (Table 2) and ethical
organisational management (Table 1) than their Australian counterparts, in contrast to
England’s (1975) study that reported both Indian and Australian managers mangers to have a
high moralistic orientation. Australian managers’ commitment to ethics is consistent with a
longstanding body of research that recognises that Australian managers demonstrate
significant ‘moralistic’ orientation (Jenner, 1982; Dowling and Nagel, 1986; Westwood and
Posner, 1997; Milton-Smith, 1997).
Indian managers rely more on hierarchy than do the Australians and are more egalitarian, but
do not communicate and give information as openly as the Australians (Table 2). Smith and
Thomas’s (1972) study suggests that while Indian managers at both middle and senior levels
in organisations profess a belief in group-based, participative decision-making, they have
17
little faith in the capacity of workers for taking initiative and responsibility. This may explain
why Indian managers do not communicate or provide information openly. Sharing
information with subordinates and communicating openly could also be characterised as
practices representing employee consultation, aimed at least in part, at facilitating change
management (Kramar and Lake 1997). This also fits with the significantly higher level of
change occurring in Australian organisations compared to Indian organisations.
Indian managers are significantly more status and less achievement oriented than their
Australian colleagues (Table 2). Again, this fits with England’s (1975) study which indicates
that the values associated with Indian managers include valuing a status orientation.
Australia and South Africa
Because of South Africa’s relatively long history of foreign investment with companies which
are heavily influenced by western management principles, it might seem more likely that
South African management and organisational characteristics be more like that of other Anglo
countries. Results suggest both Australian and South African organisations exhibit a people
and results orientation. However, South African organisations are significantly more control
oriented than Australian organisations (Table 1). Other studies have also characterized South
African organisations as bureaucratic (Jackson, 1993), hierarchical, centralized and fairly
rule-bound (Jackson, 1999).
Significant differences also exist between operational organisational characteristics: South
African organisations have stronger government regulations and trade unions, and a higher
level of foreign ownership and competition for promotion. Australian organisations are,
however, more flexible, ethical and exhibit higher levels of inter ethnic harmony (Table 2).
18
A number of the Australian results are consistent with previous research. For instance,
responses to items 15 (weak trade unions), and 23 and 8 (flexible and ethical organisational
management) support prior studies that have identified declining trade union influence
(ACIRRT 1999; Peetz 1999) and flexible and ethical organisational management (England
1975 1978; Jenner 1982; Dowling and Nagel 1986; Westwood and Posner 1997; MiltonSmith 1997). Given South Africa’s relatively long history of foreign investment with
companies, it should not be surprising that South African managers perceive a higher level of
foreign ownership than do Australian managers.
Differences occurred in terms of factors that motivate both Australian and South African
managers: South African managers are significantly more motivated by economic security
and ambition. Significant differences also exist in management commitment: South African
managers have a higher commitment to organisation, results, work and business objectives
compared to their Australian counterparts (Table 2).
Significant differences were also found between the responses to management principles:
Australian managers have a lower external locus of control, and base their decisions more on
outcomes (teleological considerations) and less on pre-set principles (deontological
considerations) than do the South Africans. Australian managers are significantly more
trusting of employees and less status oriented than South African managers. With respect to
management practices, Australian managers are significantly less reliant on rank than South
African (and Indian) managers. In fact, an Australian manager is likely to demonstrates his or
her worth and commitment to the firm’s goals, and also win respect and praise from their
workers by ‘rolling up his or her sleeves’ and ‘pitching in’ on the factory floor in an
emergency. Conversely, a manager who fails to refer a subordinate to a more knowledgeable
authority would be viewed as an egomaniac (Mahoney, Trigg. Griffin and Pustay. 1998).
19
South African managers are, however, more confrontational than Australian managers (Table
2). Table 1 also shows that Australian organisations are characterised by more inter - ethnic
harmony than South African organisations. Roodt (1997) suggests that based on a legacy of
apartheid, South African organizations may be management-worker adversarial and
discriminatory.
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Significant cross-cultural differences have been identified and documented in the previous
section. Clearly, such differences have the potential to cause difficulties in international
business. The success of cooperative undertakings such as international joint ventures, for
example, depends upon selecting compatible partners.
Lasserre and Schutte (1995) suggest a satisfactory fit along four dimensions (strategic,
organisational, resources and cultural) must be achieved. The strategic dimension includes
compatibilities between the respective partners’ strategic objectives; however, the current
study identified significant differences between Australian, and Chinese and South African
organisations’ operational and strategic orientations. Sharing the same business logic is a
requirement for cultural fit. Yet in terms of management principles, significant differences
existed in all of the items between Australia and China, India and South Africa, and 6 of the 8
management practices. Clearly, such differences have the potential to cause considerable
problems managers need to be aware of, and resolve.
Findings in this study may also be useful to international human resource managers
formulating motivational strategies, particularly in China, where it is widely recognised that
the Chinese labour pool is facing a serious shortage of skilled managers. Furthermore, the
retention of managers in foreign firms in China is a challenging issue (Lindholm, 1999;
20
Wright et al, 1998). Organisations with the potential to meet the motivation needs of Chinese
managers clearly have an advantage over competitors in the ‘people game’ (Wright et al,
1998) - attracting and retaining Chinese managerial staff.
Chinese reforms implemented in 1978 have brought unprecedented changes to management
(Zhu, 1997) and include a move away from the ‘iron rice bowl’ approach to managing
employees, and as a result, a reduction in lifetime employment. Yet, in the present study,
Chinese managers are significantly more motivated by economic security than their
Australian colleagues.
These findings may act as a starting point for future research examining the role and
importance of managerial motivational factors in the international context, including China.
As the Chinese economy continues to grow and move toward a quasi-market economy, will
the achievement motivation drive in the management population increase? Cyr and Frost
(1991) suggest that Chinese workers are becoming more goal-achievement oriented rather
than egalitarian. In the current study, Chinese managers, like their Australian colleagues,
report being motivated by opportunities to grow and develop. Yet high achievers would not
ordinarily give high scores to security-related goals (e.g., job security). Yet another study by
Elizur, Borg, Hunt and Beck (1991) indicates a low importance of instrumental values such as
pay, benefits and working conditions. Furthermore, Zhao (1995: 127) reports that Chinese
employees prefer reward differentials to be ‘determined primarily according to individual
contributions’. However, Chinese managers in this study responded that reward should be
based upon status, not achievement.
Limitations
21
It is important to remember that this exploratory study was designed to collect wide-ranging,
descriptive, quantitative data using a questionnaire which is relatively straightforward to
complete. As such it contains limitations which should be considered when assessing the
results. In particular, single item, quantitative measures were used to provide a profile of
operational characteristics, and management motivation, commitment, principles and
practices, and can only provide indicative results. It is intended that these results are seen as a
first step in exploring issues raised in the survey, particularly results identified above that are
inconsistent with previous research.
Future research may deal with the limitations of this study outlined above, for example by
employing qualitative research methods such as interviewing using open-ended questions.
Similarly, by surveying employees drawn from the same workplaces as managerial
respondents, and linking data from the employee surveys to items in the managerial survey, a
means is provided to explore the relationship between managerial perceptions and employee
experience (Harley, 1999).
CONCLUSION
It is widely accepted that the future well being of the Australian economy depends to a large
extent upon the global competency of its enterprises, including their ability to efficiently
produce and export both elaborately transformed manufactures, and services. The Karpin
Report (1995) identified the development of internationally competitive enterprises as the
fundamental means of achieving improved living standards for Australians, and the ability to
manage issues affecting international business is paramount to Australian managerial and
business success.
22
The management profiles developed in this study will be useful to managers, both in
Australia and offshore, where many Australian companies increasingly do business,
attempting to reconcile differences in management approaches in the international context.
They may also aid in the development of management systems, structures and practices that
are consistent with the respective cultural values and expectations. Furthermore, by extending
our understanding of the impact of national cultures and social systems upon both
organisation and management, Adler (1997) and Teagarden et al. (1995) argue that
management practices from developed countries can be appropriately adapted and transferred
to emerging countries.
23
REFERENCES
ACIRRT (1999) Australia at work: Just managing? Sydney: Prentice Hall
Adler, N. (1997) International dimensions of organisational behaviour, 3rd edn. Ohio: SouthWestern College Publishing.
Affirmative Action Agency (1999) Women in management.
[Online].Available:http://www.eeo.gov.au/student/statistics/index.html#management
[1999, November 30]
Alpander, G.G., and Carter, K.D. (1991) Strategic multinational intra-company differences in
employee motivation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6(2): 25-32.
Austrade (2000) Austrade Online
[Online]. Available: http://www.austrade.gov.au/index.asp [January 2000]
Burrell, S. (1999) Now, at your service. The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 October: 101,
105.
Carmines, E.G. and Zellar, R.A. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. In J.L. Sullivan
(ed.) Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences,
07-017 (Sage Pubns., Beverly Hills and London)
Cyr, D. and Frost, P. (1991) Human resources management practice in China: a future
perspective, Human Resource Management, 30(2): 199-215.
De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P.J. (1995) Cross-cultural issues in organisational behaviour. In
C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds.) Trends in organisational behaviour, vol.2.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dowling, P.J. and Nagel, T.W. (1986) Nationality and work attitudes: a study of Australian
and American business majors. Journal of Management, 12(1): 121-128.
Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1990) Under New Management: Australian Organizations in
Transition Sydney: McGraw Hill.
24
Edwards, R.W., O’Reilly, H. and Schuwwalow, P. (1997) Global Personnel skills: A
Dilemma for the Karpin committee and Others. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 35(3): 80-89.
Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt R. and Beck, I. M. (1991) The structure of work values: a crosscultural comparison. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 12: 21-38.
Encel, S. (1970) Equality and authority. London: Tavistock.
England, G.W. (1975) The Manager and His Values. Cambridge (MA): Ballinger Publishing
Co.
England, G.W. (1978) Managers and their value systems: a five country comparative study.
Columbia Journal of World Business, 13(2): 33-44.
England, G.W. (1986) National work meanings and patterns-constraints on management
action. European Management Journal, 4(3): 176-84.
Evans, W.A., Hau, K.C. and Sculli, D. (1989) A cross-cultural comparison of managerial
styles. Journal of Management Development, 8(3): 5-13.
Feather, N.T. (1986) Value systems across cultures: Australia and China. International
Journal of Psychology, 21: 697-715.
Harley, B. (1999) The Myth of Empowerment: Work Organisation, Hierarchy and Employee
Autonomy in Contemporary Australian Workplaces. Work, Employment & Society,
13(1): 41-66.
Harris, M. (1994) Pearl’s lustre lures our industry. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September: 7.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, Newbury Park (CA): Sage
Hofstede, G. (1994) The business of international business is culture. International Business
Review, 3(1): 1-14.
Hui, C.H. (1990) Work attitudes, leadership styles and managerial behaviour in different
cultures. In R. W. Brislin (ed.) Applied Cross-cultural Management London: Sage.
25
Jackson, D. (1993) Organizational culture within the South African Context. People
Dynamics, 11(6): 31-34.
Jackson, T. (1993) Ethics and the art of intuitive management. European Management
Journal, 20th Anniversary edition, 57-65.
Jackson, T. (1999) Managing change in South Africa: developing people and organisations.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2): 306-26.
Jenner, S.R. (1982) Analysing cultural stereotypes in multinational business: United States
and Australia. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 307-325.
Kabanoff, B. Jimmieson, N.L. and Lewis, M.J. (in press) Psychological contracts in Australia:
A “Fair Go” or a “Not-So-Happy Transition? In D. Rousseau, and R. Schalk, (eds.)
Psychological Contracts in Employment: International Perspectives, Sage.
Kabanoff, B. and Daly, J.P. (in press) Values Espoused by Australian and US organisations.
Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Karpin, D.S. (1995) Enterprising Nation-Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the
Challenges of the Asia-Pacific century, Report of the Industry Task Force on
Leadership and Management Skills, (Karpin Report) Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Connecticut:
Greenwood.
Kramar, R. and Lake, N. (1999) Price Waterhouse Cranfield project on international strategic
human resource management. Sydney: Macquarie University. In Kramar, R ‘Policies
for managing people in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37(2):
24-32.
Lasserre, P. and Schutte, H. (1995) Strategies for Asia Pacific. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Laurent, A. (1989) A cultural view of change. In P. Evans, Y. Doz and A. Laurent (eds.)
Human Resources Management in International Firms: Change Globalization,
Innovation, London: Macmillan.
26
Lindholm, N. (1999) Performance management in MNC subsidiaries in China: A study of
host-country managers and professionals. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
37(3): 18-35.
Mahoney, D., Trigg, M., Griffin, R. and Pustay, M. (1998) International Business: A
Managerial Perspective. South Melbourne: Longman
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprize. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Milton-Smith, J. (1997) Business ethics in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Business
Ethics, October, 16 (14): 1485-1497.
Pareek, U. and Rao, T. V. (1992) Designing and Managing Human Resources Systems. New
Delhi: Oxford and IBH.
Peetz, D. (1999) Nearly the Year of Living Dangerously: In The Emerging Worlds of
Australian Industrial relations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37(2): 3-23.
Reynolds, P.D. (1986) Organisational culture as related to industry, position and
performance: a preliminary report. Journal of Management Studies, 23(3): 333-45.
Rohmetra (1998) Human Resource Development in Commercial Banks in India. London:
Ashgate.
Roodt, A. (1997) In search of a South African corporate culture. Management Today, 13(2):
14-16.
Rotter, J.B. (1966) General expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80 (1) Whole No 609.
Soutar, G.N. McNeil, M. and Molster, C. (1995) A Management Perspective on Business
Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 14: 603-611.
Semler, J. (1999) Western Business Expatriates’ Coping Strategies in Hong Kong vs the
Chinese Mainland. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37 (2): 92-105.
Stening, B.W. and Ngan, E.F. (1997) The Cultural Context of Human Resource Management
in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 35(2): 3-15.
27
Teagarden, M.B., Von Glinow, M.A., Bowden, D.E., Frayne, C.A., Nason, S., Huo, Y.P.,
Milliman, J., Arias, M.A., Butler, M.C., Geringer, J.M., Kim, N.K., Scullion, H.,
Lowe, K.B. and Drost, E.A. (1995) Towards building a theory of comparative
management research methodology: An idiographic case study of the best
international human resources management project. Academy of Management
Journal, 38: 1261-87.
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Brealey
Vertinski, I., Tse, D.K., Wehrung, D.A. and Lee, K.H. (1990) Organisational design and
management norms: a comparative study of managers' perceptions in the People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong and Canada. Journal of Management, 16 (4): 853-67.
Wagner, J.A. (1995) Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1): 152-172.
Westwood, R.J. and Posner, B.Z. (1997) Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong
Kong and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,14: 31-66.
Whitely, W. and England, G.W. (1980) Variability in Common Dimensions of Managerial
Values due to Value Orientation and Country Differences. Personnel Psychology,
Spring :77-89.
Wright, P., Mitsuhashi, H. and Chau, R (1998) HRM in Multinationals Operations in China:
Building Human Capital and Organisational Capability. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 36 (2): 3-14.
Zhao, Y.W. (1995) Chinese motivation theory and application in China: An overview. In
H.S.R. Kao, D. Sinha and S.H. Ng (eds.) Effective organisations and social values
(pp.117-31). New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London: Sage
Zhu, C. (1997) Human resource development in China during the transition to a new
economic system. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 35(3): 19-44.
28
Curren Tukey* Ideal Tukey* Future Tukey*
t
Operational and strategic orientation
Control orientation
People orientation
Results orientation
3.05
3.30
3.48
<CS
>C
ns
2.51
4.50
4.55
<CS
>CI
ns
3.12
3.52
3.82
<CS
>I
>I
Constraints and influences
24 Bound by government regulations
25 Influenced by family members
15 Strong trade unions
3.37
2.24
1.97
<CS
ns
<S
2.73
2.07
1.84
<CSI
ns
<ISC
3.40
2.21
1.94
<C
ns
<ISC
Operationing features
10 Undergoing rapid change
11 Foreign owned
3.77
1.49
>CI
<S
3.62
1.47
<SIC
<SC
3.80
1.74
ns
<S
2.87
3.23
4.17
3.43
>C
>S
>CIS
ns
3.59
4.17
4.78
4.02
>C
ns
>CIS
ns
3.13
3.42
4.26
3.58
ns
ns
>CIS
<C,>I
Internal dynamics
27 Much competition for promotion
26 Encourages diversity of opinions
16 Inter-ethnic harmony
2.72
3.15
3.90
<CS
>C
>S
3.20
4.31
4.47
<CIS
ns
>CI
2.88
3.23
4.06
<CS
ns
>S
Management expertise
19 High level of management expertise and skills
3.34
>C
4.67
>I
3.60
ns
2
23
8
22
Style of organisational management
Risk taking
Very flexible
Very ethical
Has clear and well defined rules of action
Note: C(hina), I(ndia), S(outh Africa). Mean scores are indicated for Current (my organisation at the moment),
Ideal (the way I would like it to be) and Future (the way it is going). Scores are from 1(not like this at all) to 5
(exactly like this). * Tukey multiple comparison test p<.001.
Table 1. Australian organisational characteristics: an international comparison
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Management motivation
Preferring the security of a steady job (Economic Security)
Preferring work to be unpredictable (Managing Uncertainty)
Very ambitious to reach the top (Self Enhancement)
Freedom in job to adopt own approach (Autonomy)
Eager for opportunities to learn and develop (Personal
Development)
Setting self difficult goals (Achievement)
Enjoying, above all else, to work as part of a team (Belonging)
Preferring, above all else, to work alone (Independence)
Preferring, above all else, to direct other people (Control)
Management commitment
12 Depending only on self (to Self)
11 Making sacrifices for the good of the group (to Group)
19 Being completely loyal to the organisation, above all other
things (to Organisation)
14 Regarding the well-being of its people as the objective of an
organisation (to People)
15 Considering the results of the organisation as being paramount
(to Results)
16 Condoning all business practices if objectives are met (to
Business Objectives)
17 Believing managers must act completely ethically (to Ethical
Principles)
10 Believing that work is the most important thing in life (to Work)
18 Honouring responsibilities toward relatives (to Relatives)
Management principles
20 Believing that if one is motivated enough anything can be
achieved (Internal Locus of Control)
21 Believing that own achievement is based very much on outside
forces (External Locus of Control)
22 Basing decisions on pre-set principles, rather than outcomes
(deontology)
23 Basing decisions on likely outcomes, not on pre-set principles
(Teleology)
24 Believing that generally employees are not to be trusted
(Mistrust of Human Nature)
26 Believing that reward should be based on status (Status
Orientation)
27 Believing that reward should be based on achievement
(Achievement Orientation)
Management practices
28 Working through the hierarchy at all times (Reliance on
Hierarchy)
29 Keeping personal distance from subordinates (Use of Rank)
25 Having a completely democratic management style
(Participation)
30 Socializing with employees outside work (Egalitarianism)
31 Communicating openly (Communicating Openly)
32 Giving subordinates open access to information (Providing
Open Information)
13 Being confrontational and assertive (Confrontation)
33 A high level of management knowledge and skills
(Management Capability)
Self
Tukey
Others
Tukey
Required Tukey
3.22
3.52
3.37
4.49
4.61
<CS
>CI
<SI
>CI
>I
3.79
2.90
3.30
3.78
3.57
<CS
>C
<SI
>S
<C
2.91
3.58
3.65
4.27
4.61
<CIS
>C
<CIS
ns
ns
4.08
3.94
2.46
3.07
>I
ns
<C
<C
3.23
3.37
2.69
3.39
ns
ns
<C
ns
4.20
4.12
2.37
3.16
ns
<S
<C
<C
2.71
3.65
3.26
ns
ns
<CIS
2.67
2.92
2.96
ns
ns
<S
2.44
3.72
3.36
<I
<CIS
<CIS
4.02
ns
3.23
ns
3.94
ns
2.74
<CIS
3.01
<CS
3.14
<CI
1.82
<CIS
2.27
<CIS
2.08
<CIS
4.67
>CIS
3.89
>CIS
4.57
>CI
2.25
3.39
<CIS
<C
2.58
3.25
<CIS
<C
2.69
3.18
<CIS
<C
4.23
>C
3.45
ns
4.23
<S
2.29
<CS
2.64
<CIS
2.28
<CIS
2.59
<CS
2.89
<C
2.71
<C
3.58
>S
3.22
ns
3.67
ns
1.56
<CS
2.26
<CS
1.65
<CS
1.62
<CIS
2.42
<CIS
1.76
<CI
4.56
>CI
3.61
ns
4.46
ns
2.59
<IS
3.22
ns
2.70
ns
2.29
3.54
<C
ns
2.91
2.75
<C
<C
2.53
3.50
<C
ns
2.27
4.43
4.09
<CI
>CI
>CI
2.86
3.44
3.27
<C
>IS
ns
3.04
4.52
4.10
<CI
>CI
ns
2.40
4.15
<CS
ns
2.68
3.24
<CS
ns
2.75
4.66
<S
ns
Note: C(hina), I(ndia), S(outh Africa). Mean scores are for Self (Me, as a manager), Others (Managers generally
in my organisation), and Required (The type of manager required for the future of the organisation). Score are
from 1 (not like this at all) to 5 (just like this). * Tukey multiple comparison test p<.001.
Table 2. Australian management characteristics: an international comparison
30
Authors
Janice Jones (MCom, University of New South Wales) is a Lecturer in Management within
the School of Commerce at Flinders University where she teaches Human Resource
Management amongst other management subjects. Her research interests include human
resource management, cross-cultural management and ethics. She has worked in the public
sector for a number of years.
Terence Jackson is director of the Centre for Cross Cultural Management Research
(Oxford). He is the Chair of International Human Resource Management at EAP. Professor
Jackson’s particular areas of interest and expertise are: human resource management and
cross-cultural aspects of managing people internationally. His current research focuses on
management ethics in international business situations, international negotiation and
management of international teams in joint ventures and strategic alliances.
31
Download